NationStates Jolt Archive

Videoclip: Windows media
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

Transcript:
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=783

I wonder what her life expectencie is.

The media page is unavailable, but I read the transcript. Wafa Sultan, the psychologist, seems to have a very good grip on both history and current events. Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, "an Algerian professor of religious politics," seemed to justify Islamist terrorism with statements like this: "The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq."

His concept of "peaceful" is, to say the very least, strange.

Fascinating.

Try the video now.

I wonder what her life expectencie is.


Should we start a pool?

Some good points are brought up on both sides:

The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask from where Hitler was brought up – Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people. Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads – Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated – if education is really what makes a person a criminal?...

Can you explain to me the killing of a hundred thousand children, women and men in Algeria, using the most abominable killing methods? Can you explain to me the killing of 15,000 Syrian civilians? Can you explain to me the abominable crime in the military artillery school in Aleppo? Can you explain the crime in Al-Asbaqiya neighborhood of Damascus, Syria? Can you explain the attack of the terrorists on the peaceful village of Al-Kisheh in Upper Egypt, and the massacre of 21 Coptic peasants? Can you explain to me what is going on in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, even though these are Islamic countries which opposed the American intervention in Iraq, and which don't have armies in Iraq, yet were not spared by the terrorists? Can you explain these phenomena, which took place in Arab countries? Was all this revenge on America or Israel? Or were they merely to satisfy bestial wild instincts aroused in them by religious teachings, which incite to rejection of the other, to the killing of the other, and to the denial of the other. When Saddam Hussein buried 300,000 Shiites and Kurds alive, we did not hear a single Muslim protesting. Your silence served to acknowledge the legitimacy of these killings, didn't it?...

But I really must object to this ignorant, and false statement of hers:

Along with the Indians? Along with the Indians? What was left of the Indians? What do you have to say about the Indians?

Christopher Columbus discovered American in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America – as a constitution, a regime, and a state – for killing the Indians.Oh yes you bloody can.

Great speech, I liked the part where she said that the "people of the book" are actually "people of many books". Although I think she went a little far in some places saying that Jews had never resorted to violence in all of history.

Its a shame that the video does not continue and show what the religious guy was going to say as a counter argument, the one who started accusing her of being a "heretic" in calssic dark ages style. What more could he possibly have said?

Although I think she went a little far in some places saying that Jews had never resorted to violence in all of history.
I agree.

But I really must object to this ignorant, and false statement of hers:



Oh yes you bloody can.
Now that you mention it. I missed that part.

Oh yes you bloody can.
To be fair:

I agree that you can't blame America "as a state or regime" for killing Indians BEFORE the American state/regime existed, just like you can't blame me for killing somebody who died before I was born. However, you can (and should) hold the American state responsible for the Indians that it continued to kill and abuse after the state/regime was founded.

The fact that you have to go back 100s of years, or even 50 years in the case of Hitler to find a similar case of Western mass murder to that of Saddam just shows how limited the Islamic argument of the Evil Western oppressor is.

Besides the killing of Indians in the Americas was done mainly in the name of fundamentalist religion, not modern western secularism. I think the greatest problem is that mainstream Islamic thought does not understand what our modern culture is about. They think we are still "crusaders" or something.

Some good points are brought up on both sides:
Yes, provided that Bin Muhammad was trying to prove that if you cast your net wide enough you can find crap on anybody. His argument there was that, in the past several centuries, the non-Muslim world has done more damage than Muslim one has done recently.
Really? You mean that more people over a greater period of time can do more damage than a smaller group can do? I'd never have guessed that.

To be fair:

I agree that you can't blame America "as a state or regime" for killing Indians BEFORE the American state/regime existed, just like you can't blame me for killing somebody who died before I was born. However, you can (and should) hold the American state responsible for the Indians that it continued to kill and abuse after the state/regime was founded.
That wasn't the context of her quote:

What do you want from me? To speak evil of the American society? I've never said that America is the eternal city of Plato, but I did say it was the eternal city of Wafa Sultan. The idealism of American society was enough to allow me to realize my humanity. I came to this country with fear.

Bin Muhammad:Along with the Indians? Along with the Indians? What was left of the Indians? What do you have to say about the Indians?

Wafa Sultan: Christopher Columbus discovered American in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America – as a constitution, a regime, and a state – for killing the Indians. They were both talking about America, the state...not America the continent. I really do think she is absolving America the state of blame for the genocide of natives there.

The fact that you have to go back 100s of years, or even 50 years in the case of Hitler to find a similar case of Western mass murder to that of Saddam just shows how limited the Islamic argument of the Evil Western oppressor is. That's a convenient way to wash the US's hands of the mass killings throughout Latin America, all sanctioned because of a dreadful fear of communism.

Besides the killing of Indians in the Americas was done mainly in the name of fundamentalist religion, not modern western secularism.
Bullshit. Religion was a part of it, but a small part. Greed was the bigger motivation. That and a sense of cultural superiority.

Bullshit. Religion was a part of it, but a small part. Greed was the bigger motivation. That and a sense of cultural superiority.

Indeed. People blame religion far far to much for thing that they themselves have just as much.

Yes, provided that Bin Muhammad was trying to prove that if you cast your net wide enough you can find crap on anybody. His argument there was that, in the past several centuries, the non-Muslim world has done more damage than Muslim one has done recently.
Really? You mean that more people over a greater period of time can do more damage than a smaller group can do? I'd never have guessed that.

The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask from where Hitler was brought up – Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people. Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads – Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated – if education is really what makes a person a criminal?...
Considering most of what he mentions happened not hundreds of years ago, but instead, a few decades ago...I hardly see your point. It always amazes me when people think that 50 years is ancient history. Very short-sighted.

Considering most of what he mentions happened not hundreds of years ago, but instead, a few decades ago...I hardly see your point. It always amazes me when people think that 50 years is ancient history. Very short-sighted.
Compared to this decade? Yes, 50 years is ancient history. If we're going to be casting our gaze as far back as the 14th century in pursuit of Imperialism and war-mongering, however, there was this whole "Ottoman Empire"-thing he might want to hear about.
And you still haven't addressed teh numbers issue. Once again, he is looking at a group that is larger and a time span that is longer, noticing that said larger group did more things, and trying to draw a conclusion based on that.
That I have committed fewer sins so far today then 2 devout Catholics have commited so far this week proves nothing.

That's a convenient way to wash the US's hands of the mass killings throughout Latin America, all sanctioned because of a dreadful fear of communism.

I agree that certain American republicans and corporations have done horrible things allover the world to protect 'American interests'. But usually this was done through local client rulers, the CIA may have trained the killers, but they rarely did the killing themselves.

It is not my fault, nor my responsibility as a US permanent resident that other people in the nation I have chosen to live in have financially backed murderous regimes.
This is inevitable, theres always going to be some rich bastard that wants to do 'business' in these countries.

The biggest criminals are those that are in a position of power to stop this stuff but allow it to happen in their own country, Pinochet in Chile or Saddam in Iraq, etc. Not Americans.

Compared to this decade? Yes, 50 years is ancient history. Good. We can all stop talking about the Holocaust, since it's such ancient history.


If we're going to be casting our gaze as far back as the 14th century in pursuit of Imperialism and war-mongering, however, there was this whole "Ottoman Empire"-thing he might want to hear about.
And you still haven't addressed teh numbers issue. Once again, he is looking at a group that is larger and a time span that is longer, noticing that said larger group did more things, and trying to draw a conclusion based on that.
That I have committed fewer sins so far today then 2 devout Catholics have commited so far this week proves nothing.
I actually don't support his overall position, but I do think that he brought up some good points...that the people now accusing one group of barbarity, are guilty of it themselves...and yes, in RECENT history...not just ancient.

Does that mean I'm going to jump for joy when I hear of another suicide bomb attack? No. Just like I will not jump for joy when the US decides to invade another country. Like perhaps Iran.

I agree that certain American republicans and corporations have done horrible things allover the world to protect 'American interests'. But usually this was done through local client rulers, the CIA may have trained the killers, but they rarely did the killing themselves. Much cleaner that way, isn't it? And then you can't be held directly responsible, even though your actions directly created the environment for mass murder to flourish within.

It is not my fault, nor my responsibility as a US permanent resident that other people in the nation I have chosen to live in have financially backed murderous regimes. No, but it is your responsibility to be aware of such. Defending these actions just because you weren't a part of them helps no one.
This is inevitable, theres always going to be some rich bastard that wants to do 'business' in these countries.

The biggest criminals are those that are in a position of power to stop this stuff but allow it to happen in their own country, Pinochet in Chile or Saddam in Iraq, etc. Not Americans. Really? They didn't have the power to get rid of Pinochet? Well they certainly had the power to put him in the leader's chair. They certainly had the power to overthrow Arbenz. They certainly had the power to ensure a system of dicatorships throughout Latin America in order to protect US business interests. I'm not just talking about the government...the government does not operate independantly of the people. Had US citizens not been convinced that communism was more of a threat than mass murder, they could have stopped their leaders from carrying out missions like Operation Condor. So are they guilty? Absolutely.

But this is straying from the original topic, and for that I apologise.

Had US citizens not been convinced that communism was more of a threat than mass murder, they could have stopped their leaders from carrying out missions like Operation Condor. So are they guilty? Absolutely.

Actually, I think the argument was that their would be more mass murder if we just let the communists in. After all, when you total up the body counts, communist regimes still hold the throne.

Regardless of the nitpicking about specific quotes withing the argument, I think you'd have to be blindly PC to reject her central argument - that being that what we are experiencing now is a clash between pre and post enlightenment societies. Western civilization experienced its enlightenment through the Rennaisance. Eastern culture experienced its enlightenment by force through secular communism. Muslim society is still in the dark ages.

Good. We can all stop talking about the Holocaust, since it's such ancient history.
We talk about Pre-Revolutionary France, and it is even farther back, but we shouldn't use either as a justification or current comparison. A lot has changed since the 'Caust, if you hadn't noticed, some of that change involved the executing of the murderers, the destruction of a country, and apologies and memorials flowing like rivers. I see no such desire for self-correction inside militant Islam.
And you still missed the point. I wasn't saying that the distant past didn't matter, I was merely pointing out you'll find more wrong-doing if you expand the scope of your search. One person limited themselves to recent events, another went digging back for centuries, do you not see the difference?
I actually don't support his overall position, but I do think that he brought up some good points...that the people now accusing one group of barbarity, are guilty of it themselves...and yes, in RECENT history...not just ancient.
You mean that Hiter and Franco have come back from beyond the grave to destroy radical Islam? And they've brought Stalin, Lenin, and Christopher Columbus with them?
All the great barbarians are returning from the dead to "[accuse] one group of barbarity!" The Fimbulwinter has been upon us, Ragnarok is nigh!
Does that mean I'm going to jump for joy when I hear of another suicide bomb attack? No. Just like I will not jump for joy when the US decides to invade another country. Like perhaps Iran.
I don't jump for joy either, but not because I feel the need to pretend equity, just because I am an isolationist.

Indeed. People blame religion far far to much for thing that they themselves have just as much.

Muslims dont think they have culture superiority!!!

Muslims are just as patriotic to there culture as you are...this is not trh 1800s, and anne and the king movie!!!

You mean that Hiter and Franco have come back from beyond the grave to destroy radical Islam? And they've brought Stalin, Lenin, and Christopher Columbus with them?
All the great barbarians are returning from the dead to "[accuse] one group of barbarity!" The Fimbulwinter has been upon us, Ragnarok is nigh!


im pretty sure, you understand what he means... he is saying that all cultures and nations have been involved in some terrorist acts... someway or another, like the IRA, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan (in China, ww2) Germans in ww2, Serbs, Russians, Americans, Africans in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo even in the Peacefull nation of Australia, with the Native Aboriginals...
but you shouldnt blame the whole nation for some loony rulers desicion, or some fanatics...
do you think if all muslims were terrorists you would be alive???... Imagine 1,4 BILLION muslims terrorist... 20% of the world are terrorists...
comon... gime a break...
Muslims are as peacefull as you, if not more...

Blame religion = excusing the individual.

Thus, if a man rapes a woman and says he did it because of Islam? Then... Islam is to blame, not him. He gets to go free, yes?

Oh wait he doesn't. Because HE is responsible. Not an entire world religion.

People are individuals, and individually responsible for their own actions. I wish more people would see that.

And you still missed the point. I wasn't saying that the distant past didn't matter, I was merely pointing out you'll find more wrong-doing if you expand the scope of your search. One person limited themselves to recent events, another went digging back for centuries, do you not see the difference? But she didn't stick to recent events...she mentioned the Islamic Crusades and other 'ancient history' as well.

I don't jump for joy either, but not because I feel the need to pretend equity, just because I am an isolationist.
Yes. A suicide bombing is so much worse than the invasion and destruction of a nation.

Yes. A suicide bombing is so much worse than the invasion and destruction of a nation.

what nation was destroyed again?

Yes. A suicide bombing is so much worse than the invasion and destruction of a nation.
Wow, you're right. I suppose that those two suicide bombings (since they were the only two) were less than the two invasions. I mean, since there were apparently only two suicide bombings, which is how you're getting your 1:1 ratio, it makes the US worse. Since there has, in no way, been a progressive campaign of thousands of suicide bombings.

Yes. A suicide bombing is so much worse than the invasion and destruction of a nation.

Bad, emotive phrasing. Indiscriminately killing civilians is worse that toppling a murderous and genocidal government

Bad, emotive phrasing. Indiscriminately killing civilians is worse that toppling a murderous and genocidal government

Is it? When doing the latter caused the deaths of 25,000 or more civilians? Compared to how many were killed by suicide bombings?

i agree with the idea of individual responsibility. fundamentally, if youre going to eradicate the effect of a religion to make war against you, you cease to antagonize with the religion, and then in a sense, it cannot do so. you instead antagonize with the individual who commits the crime. and you do that again and again and again, the meanwhile the religion cannot rally against you because you do not target its adherents, you target transgressors and leave it at that. if you refuse to recognize the religion as an enemy it loses some if its legitimacy, and therefore some of its support. and eventually, theoretically, the attack dies out (assuming you overpower it) from the root level up. but while yet we do antagonize the religion, then we, in a sense, feed the attack. when we talk about islamic terrorists as a demographic - including all those who fit the former description but not the latter - we force them into the antagonistic position by striking our suspicion and defense against them.
all this exists, of course, primarily in the abstract. but i think its often good to have a fundamental vision of the problem before you can get lost in the details.
j

Blame religion = excusing the individual.

Thus, if a man rapes a woman and says he did it because of Islam? Then... Islam is to blame, not him. He gets to go free, yes?

Oh wait he doesn't. Because HE is responsible. Not an entire world religion.

People are individuals, and individually responsible for their own actions. I wish more people would see that.
Well, since she was born and raised in the Islamic world and then educated and now resides in the West, this woman's POV is probably much more valid than yours on the subject. Here's what she says about that:

In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

understanding exactly what these religious teachings are composed of is beyond our scope here. one may say the terrorist interprets them beyond their meaning, while others may say the nonviolent follower interprets them to fit his humanism. it is enough to say that one may interpret them one way or another, and that the whole of the culture allows both interpretations to flourish.
j

it is enough to say that one may interpret them one way or another, and that the whole of the culture allows both interpretations to flourish.
j
Exactly, and as long as "moderate" Muslims stay silent and allow or even tacitly support extremists to contimue to be the only voice of the Muslim world heard by the West then they have to understand that that is the voice that the West must respond to.

Well, since she was born and raised in the Islamic world and then educated and now resides in the West, this woman's POV is probably much more valid than yours on the subject.

Nope. On the subject of whether an individual is responsible for his own actions, or whether he is merely a cog in a collective hive-mind, both of our POV are of equal merit.

On the subject of Islam, I'm sure she knows more than I do. But this argument isn't about who has more knowledge about the specific religion of Islam.

Here's what she says about that:

'It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.'

"Teachings" don't do a damn thing. TEACHERS do. This just supports my radical concept of individualism. It was then the 'teachers' who 'educated' him who are (partially) to blame for 'killing his humanity.'

Subject matter and text don't do a goddamned thing. At all. It just sits there. Blaming it for warping the minds of readers is as superstitious and idiotic as the idea of a cursed book like in Evil Dead.

Great speech, I liked the part where she said that the "people of the book" are actually "people of many books". Although I think she went a little far in some places saying that Jews had never resorted to violence in all of history.


It is generally considered to be going a little far when you start making shit up.

Well, since she was born and raised in the Islamic world and then educated and now resides in the West, this woman's POV is probably much more valid than yours on the subject. Here's what she says about that:

ok im an Arab Muslim student .. and im telling you that she says nothing but Bullshit...and if i see her ill say nothing but this :upyours: then i probably will prove her point by killing her off :mp5:

if you now her tell her my regards...

ok im an Arab Muslim student .. and im telling you that she says nothing but Bullshit...and if i see her ill say nothing but this :upyours: then i probably will prove her point by killing her off :mp5:

if you now her tell her my regards...

And if you really are an Arab Muslim, you've just given more wanking material to the "Islam is Evil, KILL IT!!" nutjobs here on NationStates General with that comment.

:rolleyes:

Nope. On the subject of whether an individual is responsible for his own actions, or whether he is merely a cog in a collective hive-mind, both of our POV are of equal merit.

On the subject of Islam, I'm sure she knows more than I do. But this argument isn't about who has more knowledge about the specific religion of Islam.



"Teachings" don't do a damn thing. TEACHERS do. This just supports my radical concept of individualism. It was then the 'teachers' who 'educated' him who are (partially) to blame for 'killing his humanity.'

Subject matter and text don't do a goddamned thing. At all. It just sits there. Blaming it for warping the minds of readers is as superstitious and idiotic as the idea of a cursed book like in Evil Dead.A religion is not a text. It is the sum of the text and those who follow it. If you have only a text you have JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion which is not a religion because I have yet to meet or hear of anyone who worships Eru The One. You have made my point. This is a self perpetuating animal. A teacher imparts a mindset on a group individuals who themselves become teachers and inpart that same mindset to more individuals. That's how religions grow. They do not grow by printing more of the texts they look to for inspiration. They grow by imparting their mindsets to more individuals. The TEACHERS you speak of were once students.

And this whole argument is about Islam. The video shows a former Muslim who grew up in a Muslim country and left and came to the West. Her argument is that there is a mindset within Muslim culture that perpetuates terrorism. That's exactly the central core of her argument. What you are saying to me you may as well say to her. You may as well say to her, "No, you are wrong. It is not Islam, the religion you grew up with and know far more about than I ever could, that is to blame. It is just people who are deciding outside of the influence of Imams and Madrasses and propaganda that demonizes Jews and Westerners that they want to blow up people for their own personal reasons."

To remove the humanity that follows a religion from the definition of the religion makes no sense. This sin't about a book called The Koran. It's about a segment of humanity that identify themselves as Muslim.

psychotic dan, i appreciate your point of veiw but i think you extrapolate a little too far from my point when youre quoting me. what i was saying is that the religion itself, if it can be considered an entity not wholly synonymous with its culture, cannot be decisively blamed one way or another for inciting terrorism. where i diverge from your opinion is in that i think if you cannot blame the religion itself, then you cannot blame all the different non-terroristic factions of that religion for cooperating or being apathetic towards terrorism, any more than you can blame any other social influence for not being aggressive enough against terror (which is to say, i suppose you can blame muslims for apathy, but only insofar as you blame us all). when you absolve islam itself from blame for terrorism, saying that terrorists incite themselves to a certain extent with their interpretation of islam while peacekeeping muslims may incite themselves oppositely, then you also absolve the community around the terrorists from blame, for they are only knit in such a community with those terrorists by virtue of the fact that both claim to be "islamic".

if a religion is not a text, but the whole of the teachings and actions of its followers, then you cannot isolate that religion and act antagonistically against it, since the religion is split down countless lines of interpretation by each follower.
you DO have to differentiate between the book and the people, since not all people who read the same book read it the same way.
j

Nope. On the subject of whether an individual is responsible for his own actions, or whether he is merely a cog in a collective hive-mind, both of our POV are of equal merit.

On the subject of Islam, I'm sure she knows more than I do. But this argument isn't about who has more knowledge about the specific religion of Islam.



"Teachings" don't do a damn thing. TEACHERS do. This just supports my radical concept of individualism. It was then the 'teachers' who 'educated' him who are (partially) to blame for 'killing his humanity.'

Subject matter and text don't do a goddamned thing. At all. It just sits there. Blaming it for warping the minds of readers is as superstitious and idiotic as the idea of a cursed book like in Evil Dead.
I think there is a measure of responsibility that should be placed on the society or culture, however.

If you rear boys to think they have the right to rape whenever they please, and you teach them that women exist to serve whatever whim a man might have, I think it is a bit stupid to then focus EXCLUSIVELY on punishing the boys who grow up and rape women. Should the rapists be punished for their choices? ABSOLUTELY, and harshly. But should you also consider the cultural forces that are helping to create the rapists in the first place? Well, if you want to stop the rapists before they start, then hell yes.

ok im an Arab Muslim student .. and im telling you that she says nothing but Bullshit...and if i see her ill say nothing but this :upyours: then i probably will prove her point by killing her off :mp5:

if you now her tell her my regards...
You should pay more attention to your signature, idiot. If you are not a troll then you are exactly what is wrong with the Muslim world. Since you have done more in one post to confirm the impressions of myself and many others on this board who don't buy the stupid, "It's just a few extremists" argument, do you care to enlighten the rest of the people here who prefer to hide from the truth? Tell them what your countrymen think of a woman like this. What do you and those you know think shoudl be her punishment? What do you think your country's general consensus about people like this is? Shoudl she be stoned to death for speaking? What about Salon Rushdie? Woudl you kil him if you had teh chance? Would you turn him over to those who would? Would most of the people that you know?

And if you really are an Arab Muslim, you've just given more wanking material to the "Islam is Evil, KILL IT!!" nutjobs here on NationStates General with that comment.

:rolleyes:


good for you... (BTW, that was a Joke)...plus I dont have to prove to you that islam is good.. you just listen to the wrong people that think that Islam is a backwarded religion, calling people for terrorism...

Islam built one of the greatest civilizations the world have witnessed... If islam was such a terrorist religion, then how come South East Asia and Indonesia in Particular adopted Islam, from seeing how the Muslim Traders traded with them... do you know???

SE-asians, wantedto know about the religion that made barbarians iliving in the desert to painters, singers, poets, scientists, architects, doctors, politcians and were successfull in it...

and same goes to East Africans... in Tanzania, Maldives, Sechelleys, Kenya, Uganda, same goes to West Africa, in Mali, Senegal, Niger, Chad... if Islam was really a terrorist religion, then how come Muslims Live in all over the world ... "Literally"... this is a typical stereotype person... thinking that Arabs are womenizers, that have alot of money and spend it on women, and drinks... and are living in tents in the middle of the desert....

oh yeah and since im an arab.. im probably plugging the CP in a camels ass, hopping it wouldnt run away... comon... Did you ever visit an Arab City... and i meannot Khartoum or Mogadishou, but Beirut, Cairo, Dubai, Jeddah, Tunis, Abu Dhabi, Doha etc... these cities...???

wow, dan. lets chill. just for the fun of it.
j

Exactly, and as long as "moderate" Muslims stay silent and allow or even tacitly support extremists to contimue to be the only voice of the Muslim world heard by the West then they have to understand that that is the voice that the West must respond to.
I've seen embassies burned down and raging mobs calling for blood over a few cartoons. I'm still waiting to see anykind of mass demonstrations in muslim countries against bombings on French, Spanish or British public transport.

Islam built one of the greatest civilizations the world have witnessed... If islam was such a terrorist religion, then how come South East Asia and Indonesia in Particular adopted Islam, from seeing how the Muslim Traders traded with them... do you know???

SE-asians, wantedto know about the religion that made barbarians iliving in the desert to painters, singers, poets, scientists, architects, doctors, politcians and were successfull in it...

and same goes to East Africans... in Tanzania, Maldives, Sechelleys, Kenya, Uganda, same goes to West Africa, in Mali, Senegal, Niger, Chad... if Islam was really a terrorist religion, then how come Muslims Live in all over the world ... "Literally"... this is a typical stereotype person... thinking that Arabs are womenizers, that have alot of money and spend it on women, and drinks... and are living in tents in the middle of the desert....

The religion that made them into poets, singers etc....?????
You mean the religion that made the desert barbarians into conquerors who then invaded the lands which already had achieved all of those things and adoptet them. Islam wasn't spread to those lands because the natives where couriouse.

You have made my point. This is a self perpetuating animal. A teacher imparts a mindset on a group individuals who themselves become teachers and inpart that same mindset to more individuals. That's how religions grow. They do not grow by printing more of the texts they look to for inspiration. They grow by imparting their mindsets to more individuals. The TEACHERS you speak of were once students.

Yet people are still individuals. MY point is just that. A religion is not to blame for the actions of some of it's people. A religion is not an "animal." A person is.

So what of ONE 'student' of Islam who becomes a terrorist? How about all the other billions who DON'T? To me this says that the actions of people differ based on the people, NOT on the 'religion' that supposedly unifies them.

Blaming a religion for the behaviors of some of the people who claim to follow it is not seeing the trees through the forest.

And this whole argument is about Islam. The video shows a former Muslim who grew up in a Muslim country and left and came to the West. Her argument is that there is a mindset within Muslim culture that perpetuates terrorism. That's exactly the central core of her argument.

And I'm saying that people are responsible for their own actions. Blaming a "mindset" instead of a person shows emphatic denial of this.

My "mindset" is mine alone, and I alone am ultimately responsible for anything I do based on my "mindset."

psychotic dan, i appreciate your point of veiw but i think you extrapolate a little too far from my point when youre quoting me. what i was saying is that the religion itself, if it can be considered an entity not wholly synonymous with its culture, cannot be decisively blamed one way or another for inciting terrorism. where i diverge from your opinion is in that i think if you cannot blame the religion itself, then you cannot blame all the different non-terroristic factions of that religion for cooperating or being apathetic towards terrorism, any more than you can blame any other social influence for not being aggressive enough against terror (which is to say, i suppose you can blame muslims for apathy, but only insofar as you blame us all). when you absolve islam itself from blame for terrorism, saying that terrorists incite themselves to a certain extent with their interpretation of islam while peacekeeping muslims may incite themselves oppositely, then you also absolve the community around the terrorists from blame, for they are only knit in such a community with those terrorists by virtue of the fact that both claim to be "islamic".
I disagree and I'm not sure you understand what my point is, either. A Christian example: Fred Phelps is often brought up on this forum as an example of how Christians can be extremists, too. The difference is that his voice is drowned out by the billions of other Christians that don't run around at soldiers funerals with signs that say "God hates fags." Mainstream, nonextremist Christians are far louder than him and so the voice of modern Christianity is not one of extremism. In Islam, the people we call "Extremists" are the loudest voice. This video is the perfect example. This is the most widely watched network in the Islamic world and it has as a guest speaker a person who gives tacit approval to suicide bombers as an understandable political statement. The equivalent in Western media would be to have an abortion debate between a member of NOW and a person who feels that bombing abortion clinics is an understandable strategy to ending abortion.

good for you... (BTW, that was a Joke)...plus I dont have to prove to you that islam is good.. you just listen to the wrong people that think that Islam is a backwarded religion, calling people for terrorism...

Islam built one of the greatest civilizations the world have witnessed... If islam was such a terrorist religion, then how come South East Asia and Indonesia in Particular adopted Islam, from seeing how the Muslim Traders traded with them... do you know???

SE-asians, wantedto know about the religion that made barbarians iliving in the desert to painters, singers, poets, scientists, architects, doctors, politcians and were successfull in it...

and same goes to East Africans... in Tanzania, Maldives, Sechelleys, Kenya, Uganda, same goes to West Africa, in Mali, Senegal, Niger, Chad... if Islam was really a terrorist religion, then how come Muslims Live in all over the world ... "Literally"... this is a typical stereotype person... thinking that Arabs are womenizers, that have alot of money and spend it on women, and drinks... and are living in tents in the middle of the desert....

oh yeah and since im an arab.. im probably plugging the CP in a camels ass, hopping it wouldnt run away... comon... Did you ever visit an Arab City... and i meannot Khartoum or Mogadishou, but Beirut, Cairo, Dubai, Jeddah, Tunis, Abu Dhabi, Doha etc... these cities...???

Nobody has to prove Islam is a good religion like any other. Problem is, comments like those you've made in the previous post do nothing to shut up the people who do think Islam is EVIL and in fact like how Bin Ladin uses the Iraq invasion among other things to say "See! America wants to destroy Islam!" you're giving them more reasons to spread their beliefs.

You should pay more attention to your signature, idiot. If you are not a troll then you are exactly what is wrong with the Muslim world. Since you have done more in one post to confirm the impressions of myself and many others on this board who don't buy the stupid, "It's just a few extremists" argument, do you care to enlighten the rest of the people here who prefer to hide from the truth? Tell them what your countrymen think of a woman like this. What do you and those you know think shoudl be her punishment? What do you think your country's general consensus about people like this is? Shoudl she be stoned to death for speaking? What about Salon Rushdie? Woudl you kil him if you had teh chance? Would you turn him over to those who would? Would most of the people that you know?

ok "IDIOT" i have no idea who salon rushdie is... second ... no we wouldnt be stonig her for death... is that what you think we do??? do you think we dont have people saying that about islam here in the Arab world??? i can name several... we call them ' mostashrekeen" people who study islam to show how bad it is... and not how good it is...
for example - the Idea that a man should never be with a women alone (unless they are married, or she is his sister, Mother etc...)

a Mostashrek would say this... OMG they want to isolate women, and make them stay at homes, do nothing other then baby site and cook, this is against womens rights...

while this Idea is really for nothing other then to protect women... one single idea in islam made rape, sexual abuse, teenagers having sex, etc... the lowest rates in the world...
even oprah said it like a week or so ago...

and nothing would happen to her.. she wouldnt be stoned... who is the idiot now???

ok "IDIOT" i have no idea who salon rushdie is... second ... no we wouldnt be stonig her for death... is that what you think we do??? do you think we dont have people saying that about islam here in the Arab world??? i can name several... we call them ' mostashrekeen" people who study islam to show how bad it is... and not how good it is...
for example - the Idea that a man should never be with a women alone (unless they are married, or she is his sister, Mother etc...)

a Mostashrek would say this... OMG they want to isolate women, and make them stay at homes, do nothing other then baby site and cook, this is against womens rights...

while this Idea is really for nothing other then to protect women... one single idea in islam made rape, sexual abuse, teenagers having sex, etc... the lowest rates in the world...
even oprah said it like a week or so ago...

and nothing would happen to her.. she wouldnt be stoned... who is the idiot now???

Salman Rushdie. Satanic Verses. An old guy.

And for you Non-Muslims out there, his apparent ignorance of the subject is one proof that Islam is not the EVIL HIVEMIND you all love to believe it is.

The religion that made them into poets, singers etc....?????
You mean the religion that made the desert barbarians into conquerors who then invaded the lands which already had achieved all of those things and adoptet them. Islam wasn't spread to those lands because the natives where couriouse.


dude read history before you start saying some nonsens... Coptic Christians can tell you that Islam protected them from Roman conqueres... same in Syria, and North Africa... same with Iraq with Persians instead... how come that since Islam entered these nations, they became richer, how is that an invasion... i thought that invasions depended on taking a countries resources to build home... did you ever hear about any important events in the Arabian peninsula 1000 ad.??? no... it wasnt even a country, unlike the Abbasidds, Fatimids, Ummayids, Ayoubbids, Toulounids etc...
Islam didnt form an Empire, it made a Civilization... thats what you fail to understand...

Salman Rushdie. Satanic Verses. An old guy.

And for you Non-Muslims out there, his apparent ignorance of the subject is one proof that Islam is not the EVIL HIVEMIND you all love to believe it is.

is it possible that a Muslim doesnt know who he is???

and now that i know who he is... i ask you PsychoticDan what would a christian priest from Alabama or Moscow ,would say???

I disagree and I'm not sure you understand what my point is, either. A Christian example: Fred Phelps is often brought up on this forum as an example of how Christians can be extremists, too. The difference is that his voice is drowned out by the billions of other Christians that don't run around at soldiers funerals with signs that say "God hates fags." Mainstream, nonextremist Christians are far louder than him and so the voice of modern Christianity is not one of extremism. In Islam, the people we call "Extremists" are the loudest voice. This video is the perfect example. This is the most widely watched network in the Islamic world and it has as a guest speaker a person who gives tacit approval to suicide bombers as an understandable political statement. The equivalent in Western media would be to have an abortion debate between a member of NOW and a person who feels that bombing abortion clinics is an understandable strategy to ending abortion.
For this phenomenon I partially blame the media which transmits all these voices. We don't have stories running in the paper every day about how many muslims didn't kill anybody. And Christians, to respond to your example, in my experience, are no great advocates of gay rights; just because they don't engage in Phelp's kind of behavior doesn't mean they are any more active against that form of behavior than typical muslims are against terrorism. The difference in how we hear the voice of the muslim world vs how we hear the voice of the christian world is that in these united states we are saturated by christianity. we hear the thousands of voices unlike phelps' just by sitting around. we dont hear the same from the muslim world because they are underrepresented here. the only way we get a real sense of them is through the media, and the media only reports what is shockworthy. under those conditions, how, except by waging and equally dramatic anti-war, can muslims outclamor the sound of the twin towers falling, in terms of how each comes out in the media?

dude read history before you start saying some nonsens... Coptic Christians can tell you that Islam protected them from Roman conqueres... same in Syria, and North Africa... same with Iraq with Persians instead...
:D Yes of course. What Roman conquerors would that be? Islam was founded centuries after the fall of Rome. I'm the one that needs to read up on history? Ha!!!

how come that since Islam entered these nations, they became richer, how is that an invasion... i thought that invasions depended on taking a countries resources to build home...
Richer? So they were what? Living in mud huts until the muslims came? And the Arabs didn't invade their countries shaping the land and culture to suit Islamic ideas? Then what do you call the Abbasid empire under Harun Al Rashid? Abbasid Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abbasid_Provinces_during_the_caliphate_of_Harun_al-Rashid.JPG)

did you ever hear about any important events in the Arabian peninsula 1000 ad.??? no... it wasnt even a country, unlike the Abbasidds, Fatimids, Ummayids, Ayoubbids, Toulounids etc...
Islam didnt form an Empire, it made a Civilization... thats what you fail to understand...
I didn't hear about any important events from the Arabian peninsula prior to them invading Mesopotamia, Persia and the Byzantine provinces.

The fact that you have to go back 100s of years, or even 50 years in the case of Hitler to find a similar case of Western mass murder to that of Saddam just shows how limited the Islamic argument of the Evil Western oppressor is.

Besides the killing of Indians in the Americas was done mainly in the name of fundamentalist religion, not modern western secularism. I think the greatest problem is that mainstream Islamic thought does not understand what our modern culture is about. They think we are still "crusaders" or something.

I think this is because muslim culture has remained stagnant since the time of the Crusades(and thus, I believe why theyre considered behind the times), they still tell stories of the crusades as though they had happened 20 yrs ago. My point is that perhaps they dont have an understanding that cultures can change over time.

Yet people are still individuals. MY point is just that. A religion is not to blame for the actions of some of it's people. A religion is not an "animal." A person is.

So what of ONE 'student' of Islam who becomes a terrorist? How about all the other billions who DON'T? To me this says that the actions of people differ based on the people, NOT on the 'religion' that supposedly unifies them.

Blaming a religion for the behaviors of some of the people who claim to follow it is not seeing the trees through the forest.



And I'm saying that people are responsible for their own actions. Blaming a "mindset" instead of a person shows emphatic denial of this.

My "mindset" is mine alone, and I alone am ultimately responsible for anything I do based on my "mindset."
This is a purely Western mindset. The whole idea of individualism doesn't exist the way you see it in much of the world. Much of the rest of the world, and in particular the Muslim world, do not seperate the actions of the individual from the collective group. Here in the west the advent of the printing press and the resultant explosion of information available to the population eventually resulted in paradigm shift in how we saw ourselves within the context of our culture. People were raised and encouraged to "think for themselves" and to "find their own paths." Children are encouraged to "express themselves." Whole subcultures within youth groups are created around the idea of being "noncomformist." This, in fact, is probably exactly the influence that created the reformation and the enlightenment transitions in Western thought. It is also probably one of the chief sticking points of understanding between our cultures. In much of the rest of the world a person's place within the group and his or her conformity to the mass identity is of much more importance than their individual ideas and their willingness to "think outside the box." Here's an interesting quote from Marshall McCluhan about this concept, though it doesn't directly relate to this particular topic:
The main concept of McLuhan's argument (later elaborated upon in The Medium is the Massage) is that new technologies (like alphabets, printing presses, and even speech itself) exert a gravitational effect on cognition, which in turn affects social organization: Print technology changes our perceptual habits ("visual homogenizing of experience"), which in turn impacts social interactions ("fosters a mentality that gradually resists all but a... specialist outlook"). According to McLuhan, the advent of print technology contributed to and made possible most of the salient trends in the Modern period in the Western world: individualism, democracy, Protestantism, capitalism and nationalism. For McLuhan, these trends all reverberate with print technology's principle of "segmentation of actions and functions and principle of visual quantification" (Galaxy p. 154).By "specialist outlook" what McCluhan is refering to is the specialization of minds within a culture. People are valued in as much as they have "their own opinions" and on how well they can back up "their own point of view." This is a concept that we in the West need to rediscover if we are to deal realistically with the Muslim world. This is not a value judgement, its just a cultural difference that exists because of historical circumstance. Whereas European culture became sedentary two thousand years ago Arab culture did not. The Romans built libraries because they could. Arab culture was nomadic because its the lifestyle their physical environment favored. You cannot carry a library around on the back of a camel. This meant that while the Romans and afterward their decendants went through periods of gathering and storing massive amounts of information in books and libraries people in the Middle East and, after the fall of the Egyptians, the Northern Africans were living nomadic lives that favored the passing on of oral traditions and the maintenance of strong group identities. Once the printing press was invented this meant that the information in books gathered over a millenia were now available to the masses and the period of enlightenment that favored a flowering of individual thought and identity - and RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S OWN ACTIONS - began.

:D Yes of course. What Roman conquerors would that be? Islam was founded centuries after the fall of Rome. I'm the one that needs to read up on history? Ha!!!


Richer? So they were what? Living in mud huts until the muslims came? And the Arabs didn't invade their countries shaping the land and culture to suit Islamic ideas? Then what do you call the Abbasid empire under Harun Al Rashid? Abbasid Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abbasid_Provinces_during_the_caliphate_of_Harun_al-Rashid.JPG)


I didn't hear about any important events from the Arabian peninsula prior to them invading Mesopotamia, Persia and the Byzantine provinces.

well i guess thats a differenc in pronounciancion... we call the Byzantine empire in its early statges the Romans.... since it was an empire that was divided into east and west.. correct me if im wrong... but these nations havent achieved anything untill islam came... Egyptians had the pyramids barried in dust, the sphinx was under the sands, Syria depended on nothing but trade, North africans were too bussy fighting Romans(or whatever you want to call them) Egyptians, Syrians etc... had to pay taxes more than they can afford. and romans(or whatever you wanna call them again) were abusing them, and there churches.

this is a copy-Paste from Wikipedia
From Chalcedon to the Arab conquest of Egypt
Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.

The Arab conquest of Egypt
The Arab conquest of Egypt took place in AD 641. Although the Imperial forces resisted the Arab army under Amr ibn al-As, the majority of the civilian population, having suffered persecution for the differing Christian beliefs, were less hostile; in some cases they welcomed their new masters. Considered "People of the Book", Christians were allowed to practice their religion, under the protection of the Islamic Shari'a law. This protection stemmed in part from a Hadith of the Prophet (whose Egyptian wife Maria had borne him a son who died in infancy, named Ibrahim) that advised "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin" .

Despite the political upheaval, Egypt remained a mainly Christian land, although gradual conversions to Islam over the centuries and the massive immigration of Arabs had the effect of changing Egypt from a mainly Christian to a mainly Muslim country by the end of the 12th century. This process was sped along by persecutions during and following the reign of the mad Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (reigned AD 996-1021) and the Crusades, and also by the acceptance of Arabic as a liturgical language by the Pope of Alexandria Gabriel ibn-Turaik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity

For this phenomenon I partially blame the media which transmits all these voices. We don't have stories running in the paper every day about how many muslims didn't kill anybody. And Christians, to respond to your example, in my experience, are no great advocates of gay rights; just because they don't engage in Phelp's kind of behavior doesn't mean they are any more active against that form of behavior than typical muslims are against terrorism. The difference in how we hear the voice of the muslim world vs how we hear the voice of the christian world is that in these united states we are saturated by christianity. we hear the thousands of voices unlike phelps' just by sitting around. we dont hear the same from the muslim world because they are underrepresented here. the only way we get a real sense of them is through the media, and the media only reports what is shockworthy. under those conditions, how, except by waging and equally dramatic anti-war, can muslims outclamor the sound of the twin towers falling, in terms of how each comes out in the media?
First, the example here is from their own media, not ours. Second, no one has a problem with people having their own opinions, its how they express them and what their tolerance levels are towards people who disagree.

good for you... (BTW, that was a Joke)...plus I dont have to prove to you that islam is good.. you just listen to the wrong people that think that Islam is a backwarded religion, calling people for terrorism...

Islam built one of the greatest civilizations the world have witnessed... If islam was such a terrorist religion, then how come South East Asia and Indonesia in Particular adopted Islam, from seeing how the Muslim Traders traded with them... do you know???

SE-asians, wantedto know about the religion that made barbarians iliving in the desert to painters, singers, poets, scientists, architects, doctors, politcians and were successfull in it...

and same goes to East Africans... in Tanzania, Maldives, Sechelleys, Kenya, Uganda, same goes to West Africa, in Mali, Senegal, Niger, Chad... if Islam was really a terrorist religion, then how come Muslims Live in all over the world ... "Literally"... this is a typical stereotype person... thinking that Arabs are womenizers, that have alot of money and spend it on women, and drinks... and are living in tents in the middle of the desert....

oh yeah and since im an arab.. im probably plugging the CP in a camels ass, hopping it wouldnt run away... comon... Did you ever visit an Arab City... and i meannot Khartoum or Mogadishou, but Beirut, Cairo, Dubai, Jeddah, Tunis, Abu Dhabi, Doha etc... these cities...???

Its funny you should mention SE Asia because I would like to point out that in some such countries, Thailand at least, there are muslim rebels who want to over thow the government in the southern portions of the country. Im fairly certain this is because thailand is seen as perhaps too "western" of a nation or that it supports the west too much.

NOTE: this is from a couple news articles from a year ago and a conversation w/a foreign exchange student from thailand.

is it possible that a Muslim doesnt know who he is???

and now that i know who he is... i ask you PsychoticDan what would a christian priest from Alabama or Moscow ,would say???
Maybe you need to brush up on yoru English because I have no idea what you are asking me here. What would a Christian priest say about what? :confused:

well i guess thats a differenc in pronounciancion... we call the Byzantine empire in its early statges the Romans.... since it was an empire that was divided into east and west.. correct me if im wrong... but these nations havent achieved anything untill islam came...
One of the greatest civilisations of all times achieved nothing until a bunch of barbarians on camelback came riding from the desert? Taking the great libraries containing the knowledge of the ancient. You might want to read some history books.

Why is this necessarily "the truth"? People, it's an opinion!

Its funny you should mention SE Asia because I would like to point out that in some such countries, Thailand at least, there are muslim rebels who want to over thow the government in the southern portions of the country. Im fairly certain this is because thailand is seen as perhaps too "western" of a nation or that it supports the west too much.

NOTE: this is from a couple news articles from a year ago and a conversation w/a foreign exchange student from thailand.
Theres the Phillipines as well. They also suffer from muslim terror.

You might want to read some history books.
No, you might want to.

No, you might want to.
Already have.

this process was sped along by persecutions during and following the reign of the mad Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (reigned AD 996-1021) and the Crusades, and also by the acceptance of Arabic as a liturgical language by the Pope of Alexandria Gabriel ibn-Turaik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity

Hmm maybe persecutions and a punitive tax helped to convert people to islam?

Already have.
Go ask the Oriental Christians if they thought Byzantine rule was better than Arab, and about who the barbarian was. Then see if your cliche holds water.

Hmm maybe persecutions and a punitive tax helped to convert people to islam?
What about the alternative: their genocide at the hands of Byzantines?

One of the greatest civilisations of all times achieved nothing until a bunch of barbarians on camelback came riding from the desert? Taking the great libraries containing the knowledge of the ancient. You might want to read some history books.


perhaps i didnt explain simple enaugh for you to understand... what i mean is that after having GREAT civilizations, in Iraq, Egypt, near east etc... there was a period of no great things happened.. which was probably under the Greek rule, followed by Romans and persians... Greeks, Romans and Persians had there golden age in the periods that EGypt, Syria and Iraq were in the... bad days... thats what i said, when islam came in, These countries prospured again...

Go ask the Oriental Christians if they thought Byzantine rule was better than Arab, and about who the barbarian was. Then see if your cliche holds water.
I never disputet that the Byzantine rule was immensly impopular. Or that the oriental Xtians where happy to get rid of it. The same Byzantine corruption led to the Visigoth uprising which culminatet in the destruction of the Byzantine armies and the death of the eastern emperor at Adrianopel.

Hmm maybe persecutions and a punitive tax helped to convert people to islam?

typical... from anb article about how muslims are good... you take the only Bad thing... which is a guy that even WE call was mad....

your arguing for the sack of arguing... without trying to accept what the others try to enlight you...

perhaps i didnt explain simple enaugh for you to understand... what i mean is that after having GREAT civilizations, in Iraq, Egypt, near east etc... there was a period of no great things happened.. which was probably under the Greek rule, followed by Romans and persians... Greeks, Romans and Persians had there golden age in the periods that EGypt, Syria and Iraq were in the... bad days... thats what i said, when islam came in, These countries prospured again...
They prospered in comparison to the West because the Roman church kept all the knowledge under lock and key. A dumb mass was easier to rule.
Islam only added the religouse aspect to the whole thing.

What about the alternative: their genocide at the hands of Byzantines?

Im not defending what the byzantines did (and id like to note it wasnt genocide, they didnt like the coptic interperetations of the bible, or at least thats the reason given). In the end what were talking about is the forced conversion of a nation to one religion or another, either way it was a bad thing, what Im saying is that they were both wrong.

http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php

I never disputet that the Byzantine rule was immensly impopular. Or that the oriental Xtians where happy to get rid of it. The same Byzantine corruption led to the Visigoth uprising which culminatet in the destruction of the Byzantine armies and the death of the eastern emperor at Adrianopel.
Let me break it down for you:
Byzantine pov - murder all heretics, begin absolute domination.
Muslim pov - allow all forms of monotheism to have their own authorities, begin a Caliphate to establish stately domination over all heretics.
Not a question of "decadence". A question of outlook.

Let me break it down for you:
Byzantine pov - murder all heretics, begin absolute domination.
Muslim pov - allow all forms of monotheism to have their own authorities, begin a Caliphate to establish stately domination over all heretics.
Not a question of "decadence". A question of outlook.
What are you trying to say here? Hmm?

typical... from anb article about how muslims are good... you take the only Bad thing... which is a guy that even WE call was mad....

your arguing for the sack of arguing... without trying to accept what the others try to enlight you...

yes and we consider what the byzantines were doing wrong to, I wasnt trying to say islam was bad(in comparison to the eastern orthodox church at the time), just to point out that it seemed no matter who conquered them they were destined to be forced into a religion not of thier own choosing, and that the muslims didnt conquer egypt to help a brother out. They wanted to do what they did, which was conquering them and converting them, as it turns out a crazy guy got in there and persecuted people.

I never disputet that the Byzantine rule was immensly impopular. Or that the oriental Xtians where happy to get rid of it. The same Byzantine corruption led to the Visigoth uprising which culminatet in the destruction of the Byzantine armies and the death of the eastern emperor at Adrianopel.

you can know about the Arabs events from this article
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/08/alphabet/

perhaps you can see how these barbarians realy are....

Let me break it down for you:
Byzantine pov - murder all heretics, begin absolute domination.
Muslim pov - allow all forms of monotheism to have their own authorities, begin a Caliphate to establish stately domination over all heretics.
Not a question of "decadence". A question of outlook.
back to the present:

Western outlook: Allow freedom of expression and allow people to worship however they want freely.
Muslim outlook: Supress freedom of expression by issuing fatwahs against people who publish cartoons we dont' like and putting rewards on the heads of people like Salmon Rushdie. Create a hero-warship culture around suicide bombers according to the number of people killed.

typical... from anb article about how muslims are good... you take the only Bad thing... which is a guy that even WE call was mad....

your arguing for the sack of arguing... without trying to accept what the others try to enlight you...

You can't just look at the bright side of life you know.

Although Monty Python sure wants to.

Is it? When doing the latter caused the deaths of 25,000 or more civilians? Compared to how many were killed by suicide bombings?

Do you know how many people died setting up democratic societies in the US, the UK, or France? Way more than 25,000!

back to the present:

Western outlook: Allow freedom of expression and allow people to worship however they want freely.
Muslim outlook: Supress freedom of expression by issuing fatwahs against people who publish cartoons we dont' like and putting rewards on the heads of people like Salmon Rushdie. Create a hero-warship culture around suicide bombers according to the number of people killed.

"Muslim" outlook?? Of the Muslim pope, I suppose. Or another central religious organism of contemporary Islam.
Who's to back you up on this? The great theologians of Hamas? The apostate Osama?

What are you trying to say here? Hmm?
I'm saying that, in context, the Umma was virtually synonymous with even a modern notion of civilisation. And, beyond that, stately domination - which was not, in retrospect, a bad thing - is not even a prerequisite of Muslim belief.

Regarding the Byzantine Empire, it was one of the sections of the Roman Empire that grew extremely rich and wealthy during its 1000 years of existence. It provoked much of the indifference that the rest of the West later fell into with regard to it by its arrogance. Although the Crusaders overstepped their boundaries by ransacking Constantinople, Byzantine arrogance had left the remainder of the West apathetic by 1453. Too bad.

Either way, to say the West was dormant during the period of the Early Middle Ages is a lie. Byzantine was a flourishing culture in spite of its limitations. As for Arab relations with it? Well it would have helped if Arabs had not attacked it to begin with.

Oh and yes, the West had more than compensated for thousands of years of civilisation BEFORE the collapse of the Roman Empire, much of which created modern Western tradition (Greco-roman/germanic civilisation). Egypt and Babylon, likewise, also had great cultures. Diminishing them and saying "oh look at these uncivilised barbarians" in the Middle Ages is kind of dumb as an argument that they were barbarians ab initio, ad infinitum. Nor does it add much to the argument that this reflects on the present at all. What once was, now is no longer.

Oh, and yes. Justifying Arab empires in Africa is like justifying European colonies there- yes, they both brought certain merits, but the Arab empires were just as bad. Many Africans to this day detest their early Arab colonists, even more so than their later European colonists. They did not really appreciate having their women rooted out of Africa to be used as pleasure slaves.

you can know about the Arabs events from this article
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/08/alphabet/

perhaps you can see how these barbarians realy are....
Yes. I can. From this here.
http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php
And this.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/world/060220a.asp
And I could go on and on.

Although the Crusaders overstepped their boundaries by ransacking Constantinople, Byzantine arrogance had left the remainder of the West apathetic by 1453. Too bad.

That realy was more the final chapter of a tradewar between Venice and Constantinople with the crusaders beeing the executioners.

That realy was more the final chapter of a tradewar between Venice and Constantinople with the crusaders beeing the executioners.
Imperial politics. It cost Byzantine its viability.

Who's to back you up on this? The great theologians of Hamas?yes. The very ones that just came to power in a lanslide victory because they enjoy overwhelming support. The apostate Osama?
Yes. The one who in a recent Saudi poll is believed to be the "world's greatest leader" by 70% of the population. :D

Regarding the Byzantine Empire, it was one of the sections of the Roman Empire that grew extremely rich and wealthy during its 1000 years of existence. It provoked much of the indifference that the rest of the West later fell into with regard to it by its arrogance. Although the Crusaders overstepped their boundaries by ransacking Constantinople, Byzantine arrogance had left the remainder of the West apathetic by 1453. Too bad.

Let me point out that the Crusades entered history in order to help the Byzantines after Manzikert. That "let's free Jerusalem" was bullshit (Jerusalem had been conquered a couple of hundred years by then).

Either way, to say the West was dormant during the period of the Early Middle Ages is a lie. Byzantine was a flourishing culture in spite of its limitations. As for Arab relations with it? Well it would have helped if Arabs had not attacked it to begin with.

You forget that the Byzantines had a bone to pick with the Sassanids. The Muslims were following a goal, and they, by sheer nature, were opened up to all those persecuted by Christianity.

Oh and yes, the West had more than compensated for thousands of years of civilisation BEFORE the collapse of the Roman Empire, much of which created modern Western tradition (Greco-roman/germanic civilisation). Egypt and Babylon, likewise, also had great cultures. Diminishing them and saying "oh look at these uncivilised barbarians" in the Middle Ages is kind of dumb as an argument that they were barbarians ab initio, ad infinitum.

I don't think anyone was diminishing any culture but the Islamic one - that would be Von Witzleben's pov (I haven't looked through all the posts, though).

Oh, and yes. Justifying Arab empires in Africa is like justifying European colonies there- yes, they both brought certain merits, but the Arab empires were just as bad. Many Africans to this day detest their early Arab colonists, even more so than their later European colonists. They did not really appreciate having their women rooted out of Africa to be used as pleasure slaves.

For better or worse, Islam aimed and managed to create an inclusive identity. Much unlike colonialism. Sure, Berber vs. Arab lingers on: but take a look over it all (Africa to the Balkans). People on this thread were trying to prove that Islamization was the result of violence - more often than not, it wasn't IMO.
The Balkans, Africa, Australasia, offer countless examples of willing conversion (even, en masse).
It could also have a more negative impact, but make the comparison full: slavery in the Muslim world allowed for emancipation, and it was never aimed at a particular group - other than the vague "non-believers".

yes. The very ones that just came to power in a lanslide victory because they enjoy overwhelming support.
Yes. The one who in a recent Saudi poll is believed to be the "world's greatest leader" by 70% of the population. :D
A selective answer, and completely beside the point.

if youre going to eradicate the effect of a religion to make war against you, you cease to antagonize with the religion, and then in a sense, it cannot do so. you instead antagonize with the individual who commits the crime. and you do that again and again and again, the meanwhile the religion cannot rally against you because you do not target its adherents, you target transgressors and leave it at that. if you refuse to recognize the religion as an enemy it loses some if its legitimacy, and therefore some of its support. and eventually, theoretically, the attack dies out (assuming you overpower it) from the root level up. but while yet we do antagonize the religion, then we, in a sense, feed the attack.

But to only target the individuals who attack us, we are in a sense being very selfish. In our countries people are relatively free from persecution from religious fanatics because we fought to make it so for 500 years.

It is not only selfish, but also rascist to now stop this fight now that we are safe in the West whilst denying help to those who now need it most in developing countries, namely religious and ethnic minorities and women.

Th liberal view that we must fight for tolerance, freedom and equality in our own culture, whilst abandoning the weak and exploited in other cultures is rascist and cruel.

The Left is the new Right.

I don't think anyone was diminishing any culture but the Islamic one - that would be Von Witzleben's pov (I haven't looked through all the posts, though).
There is a constant desire to trash the West and other Mesopotamian cultures nowadays. I was clarifying.


For better or worse, Islam aimed and managed to create an inclusive identity. Much unlike colonialism. Sure, Berber vs. Arab lingers on: but take a look over it all (Africa to the Balkans). People on this thread were trying to prove that Islamization was the result of violence - more often than not, it wasn't IMO.
The Balkans, Africa, Australasia, offer countless examples of willing conversion (even, en masse).
It could also have a more negative impact, but make the comparison full: slavery in the Muslim world allowed for emancipation, and it was never aimed at a particular group - other than the vague "non-believers".
It still left no better taste in the mouths of the non-believers. Don't try and make this look peachy and rosy. It wasn't. I wonder if you would take to being coerced into a new faith. Conversion is pretty easy if your life and future prosperity is at stake.

Oh, and for examples of non-peaceful coercion, look at Cyprus or Greece. The option was convert from Christian to Muslim, or die. Children were often snatched out of their parents families and converted to fanatical Muslims for the Ottoman Empire. As a counter, many Greeks became Muslims, yet secretly remained Christians. In some Balkan countries, like Bulgaria, the situation was often similar. This was one of the reasons that the Russian Empire came to detest Turkey, aside from being its natural antagonist.

Th liberal view that we must fight for tolerance, freedom and equality in our own culture, whilst abandoning the weak and exploited in other cultures is rascist and cruel.

The Left is the new Right.
If only for practical and functional purposes, I agree with you. Out of human sympathy though? No.

Original post:
back to the present:

Western outlook: Allow freedom of expression and allow people to worship however they want freely.
Muslim outlook: Supress freedom of expression by issuing fatwahs against people who publish cartoons we dont' like and putting rewards on the heads of people like Salmon Rushdie. Create a hero-warship culture around suicide bombers according to the number of people killed.
You're response:
"Muslim" outlook?? Of the Muslim pope, I suppose. Or another central religious organism of contemporary Islam.
Who's to back you up on this? The great theologians of Hamas? The apostate Osama?
My response:
"Muslim" outlook?? Of the Muslim pope, I suppose. Or another central religious organism of contemporary Islam.
Who's to back you up on this? The great theologians of Hamas?yes. The very ones that just came to power in a lanslide victory because they enjoy overwhelming support.The apostate Osama?
Yes. The one who in a recent Saudi poll is believed to be the "world's greatest leader" by 70% of the population. :D
Your response:
A selective answer, and completely beside the point.
:confused: I fail to see how I can be beside the point when I made the original point, but anyway...

A summary of my original point: The Muslim world wants to censor Western freedom of expression through intimidation. Two examples are fatwahs issued against cartoonists and writers who are seen by Muslims to have insulted Islam. Your response to my point: You cannot use the pronouncements of a few religious leaders like Hamas and Bin Laden to guage the attitude of the Muslim world. My response to your rebuttal: Hamas just enjoyed a landslide victory in an election and Bin Laden shows up in polls as overwhelmingly popular in at least one major country in the Muslim world.


I think I'm right on point and that your last post as a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you looked at my argument and handed me a rebuttal that backed up my argument with the very examples you gave.

First of all, I'm not a Muslim, nor a Muslim apologist. Just thought I'd get this out of the way.

It still left no better taste in the mouths of the non-believers. Don't try and make this look peachy and rosy. It wasn't. I wonder if you would take to being coerced into a new faith. Conversion is pretty easy if your life and future prosperity is at stake.

Your life and property might or might not have been at stake. As a priniple, they weren't in Islam - unlike Christianity (clue: if you had another religion or took another view in Byzantine lands, you were dead - no question about that). This is not by all means absolute: however, even in cases mentioned, people fail to notice, for example, that the Fatimid drive at conversion and/or killing was primarily aimed at other Muslims (people today fail to notice, just as the Crusaders themselves failed to).

Oh, and for examples of non-peaceful coercion, look at Cyprus or Greece.

Greece?! Pray show me the Muslims in Greece nowadays. Don't confuse politically-motivated violence with conversion. Fact is that the Ottomans did not care - and one could argue that they even discouraged people from converting (as they would have to pay less tax).

The option was convert from Christian to Muslim, or die. Children were often snatched out of their parents families and converted to fanatical Muslims for the Ottoman Empire.

No, they were not. They were snatched and drafted. It's like saying that Americans snatched Blacks to have them become Christian (except that a snatched child from the Balkans could look forward to a career, and a better life than his family - he would always have been from a peasant one). Such an "overview" disregards blatant truths:
-a Janissary would keep contact with his family. Not only that, there are also numerous cases of corruption where the dhimi "renegated" family of a Janissary potentate would reside in Istanbul and ask for money in order to place a good word with the scion. In many cases, the family would offer their son for the corps.
-the Ottomans were took this measure precisely because they did not aim to convert the population. They wanted an "as loyal as possible" army in front of the shifty spectre of allegiances they were presented with in the Balkans.

As a counter, many Greeks became Muslims, yet remained Christians. In some Balkan countries, like Bulgaria, the situation was often similar.

No, that would be mostly the modern justification of cultural genocide against Albanians, Muslim Aromanians and the Pumaks. A ruthlessly ethno-nationalist state like Greece or Bulgaria could not tolerate that another cultural identity was occupying the same space, so they made them seem "de-Islamifiable" (see what happened to the Arvanites vs. Albanians, or Zhivkov's name changing campiagn). When they could not deal with resistance, they just expelled the said Muslims into Turkey (Pumaks, Balkan Circassians, Greek Muslims). It's merely propaganda for the tribsalist nation-state.

This was one of the reasons that the Russian Empire came to detest Turkey, aside from being its natural antagonist.

The Russian Empire had nothing to show for. Let me tell you about how Wallachians and Moldavians went from a willingness to form a province of the Russian Empire to welcoming back the Ottomans, in the space of ten years. You couldn't possibly argue "religious hatred" there. All who held Russia as a model-state did not live on its border. The Ottomans were asking for nothing in comparison.

A summary of my original point: The Muslim world wants to censor Western freedom of expression through intimidation. Two examples are fatwahs issued against cartoonists and writers who are seen by Muslims to have insulted Islam. Your response to my point: You cannot use the pronouncements of a few religious leaders like Hamas and Bin Laden to guage the attitude of the Muslim world. My response to your rebuttal: Hamas just enjoyed a landslide victory in an election and Bin Laden shows up in polls as overwhelmingly popular in at least one major country in the Muslim world.


I think I'm right on point and that your last post as a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you looked at my argument and handed me a rebuttal that notvery examples you gave.
I had asked you if there are religious authorities speaking for the religion of Islam. Instead of grinding my nerves pointing out basic topics that you should be aware of, I chose not to go into details. You are "proving" this to your chimeras.

Your life and property might or might not have been at stake. As a priniple, they weren't in Islam - unlike Christianity (clue: if you had another religion or took another view in Byzantine lands, you were dead - no question about that). This is not by all means absolute: however, even in cases mentioned, people fail to notice, for example, that the Fatimid drive at conversion and/or killing was primarily aimed at other Muslims (people today fail to notice, just as the Crusaders themselves failed to).
I am well aware of the Byzantine's strict orthodoxy, even against other Christians.

Greece?! Pray show me the Muslims in Greece. Don't confuse politically-motivated violence with conversion. Fact is that the Ottomans did not care - and one could argue that they even discouraged people from converting (as they would have to pay less tax).
There aren't any due to the fact that they were expelled or most conversions were false.


No, they were not. They were snatched and drafted. It's like saying that Americans snatched Blacks to have them become Christian (except that a snatched child could look forward to a career, and a better life than his family - he would always have been from a peasant one). Such an "overview" disregards blatant truths:
-a Janissary would keep contact with his family. Not only that, there are also numerous cases of corruption where the dhimi "renegated" family of a Janissary potentate would reside in Istanbul and ask for money in order to place a good word with the scion. In many cases, the family would offer their son for the corps.
-the Ottomans were took this measure precisely because they did not aim to convert the population. They wanted an "as loyal as possible" army in front of the shifty spectre of allegiances they were presented with in the Balkans.

Err so then why exactly did the Janissaries have no qualms in killing family members when encountered by them?

No, that would be mostly the modern justification of cultural genocide against Albanians, Muslim Aromanians and the Pumaks. A ruthlessly ethno-nationalist state like Greece or Bulgaria could not tolerate that another cultural identity was occupying the same space, so they made them seem "de-Islamifiable" (see what happened to the Arvanites vs. Albanians, or Zhivkov's name changing campiagn). When they could not deal with resistance, they just expelled the said Muslims into Turkey (Pumaks, Balkan Circassians, Greek Muslims). It's merely propaganda for the tribsalist nation-state.

To my knowledge, wasn't it the Ottoman Empire that perpetrated a great deal of the genocides in this region? Even that of the Armenians within its borders.


The Russian Empire had nothing to show for. Let me tell you about how Wallachians and Moldavians went from a willingness to form a province of the Russian Empire to welcoming back the Ottomans, in the space of ten years. You couldn't possibly argue "religious hatred" there. All who held the Russians as a model-state did not live on its border. The Ottomans were asking for nothing in comparison.
The Ottoman Empire was hardly a model state either though.

I had asked you if there are religious authorities speaking for the religion of Islam. Instead of grinding my nerves pointing out basic topics that you should be aware of, I chose not to go into details. You are "proving" this to your chimeras.
So you're saying you want examples of actual Muslim religious scholars or Imams that have issued fatwahs or otherwise called for the deaths of people who have published views that are seen as insulting to Islam? I assume you want popular religious figures? Do you really want me to come up with their names or can we just stipulate that very popular religious figures, in addition to Bin Laden and Hamas, have reacted to books and other published entities routinely call for capital punishment as punishment for the authors? I mean I can get more but right off the top of my head there's the Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest Islamic group, which had 5000 children in the streets of pakistan chanting "Hang those who insulted the prophet." I'll be happy to find more if you like, but rather than make me do the work can't you just admit that you know I'll find plenty? Popular religious leaders in Islamic countries routinely call for people to be killed in response to other people expressing their views. Its those that call for understanding and dialogue that are unpopular.

Argument: Muslims do bad things.
Counter argument: No they don't.
Rebuttal: Here's an example:
Counter rebuttal:That's just a few.
Point: They enjoy broad support in their countries. Here's proof.
Counterpoint: This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a wookie. But the ewoks are from Endore! If Chewbacca is a wookie thn how can the Ewoks be from Endore? If it doesn't fit, you must aquit.

There aren't any due to the fact that they were expelled or most conversions were false.

I suppose the Bosniaks, the Albanians, the Pumaks, the Aromanians, and the few Muslim Greeks that remain are also "false converts".


Err so then why exactly did the Janissaries have no qualms in killing family members when encountered by them?

Err... when was that, my friend?


To my knowledge, wasn't it the Ottoman Empire that perpetrated a great deal of the genocides in this region? Even that of the Armenians within its borders.

Let's establish the necessary distinctions.
"Religion on religion" was the logic of the world until the XIXth century. If you consider the scale and impications of the conflict, note that the Ottomans never moved from their logic of domination - not extermination, not even conversion. Violence (always present as an outcome of tension - in which the Christians played their part by looking for Christian masters in St. Petersburg) should be contrasted with the obvious tolerance. Not only that, but the Ottomans even gave Orthodox Christianity une raison d'etre and even an identity per se after the fall of the Byzantines (by refusing to take over the sanctiong role of the Emperors).
And then, nationalism came about. Russia identified itself as the ultimate Orthodoxy (over the head of Constantinople - because Peter the Great created a Synod for him and his drinking buddies). They encouraged a conflict between Orthodox and Muslim, and made no secret out of a wish to sunbathe by the Mediterranean.
The Western Powers decided to curb this by asking the Ottomans to give up the division by religion within their state, and made them introduce the Tanzimat and other such things: meaning that the Ottomans were ruling not over three religions, but over a huge set of nationalities. The latter started competing each other (Serbia and Bulgaria were fighting a war against each other before being fully emancipated from Ottoman rule; the Balkans war started immediately after Turkey was taken out of the Balkans; the Albanians genuinely did not want the Ottomans to leave in that moment, as everybody started slicing up their country; Bulgaria went from being Russia's little helper to an ally of Germany etc etc).
This is the context. Turkey had to reshape itself from a national, Turkish perspective. When the Armenian genocide happened, the Young Turks were in power in Istanbul. They were mostly Balkan Muslims who advocated the same idea Ataturk stood for: making Turkey better by making it smaller (getting rid of its "enemies within"). They couldn't do that initially, since they still wanted to include as much of the Balkans as possible. But, the moment that came off their hands, and after they had gained power in Istanbul (note that they engineered a revolution - reason enough to consider that they did not stand for the traditional views), they were left with basic Anatolia after WWI. The genocide against Armenians is more of a rupture with the past than anything: they were not victims or Islam or the Ottomans, they were victims of nationalism as it came to this part of the world. The same goes for the previous murders of Bulgarians (except that these were only exaggerated to mean a genocide by Russia and its supporters - it was a convenient cassus belli, and came after decades of Russian instigation of a Bulgarian revolt).

The Ottoman Empire was hardly a model state either though.

Yes, but your point was that it was so because of religion. It was not. And, on all counts, it was better: proof is that Christians usually favored the Ottomans. Actually, the Ottoman Empire would hardly be a model state today - back then, it was doing just fine.
Also for comparison, the exodus of Christians outside of Turkey was nothing compared with that of Muslims from lands gained by the Russians. Not to mention that Muslim domination offered countless loopholes to servitude (which was, however, the predilect system in Russia and Hungary - which is why Russia offered migrants economic freedoms to lure them), but the Ottomans allowed their subjects to freely ammass wealth (as long as they partly traded with Istanbul, since they badly needed the cash).
Incidentally, Ottoman lands were the place of refuge for any failed liberal cause in other parts of Eastern Europe (a whole Polish revolutionary army took exile in Serbia after 1848, and its leader even converted to Islam. They were following a pattern set by waves of en masse defections and large numbers of subsequent conversions by Habsburg armies.)

So you're saying you want examples of actual Muslim religious scholars or Imams that have issued fatwahs or otherwise called for the deaths of people who have published views that are seen as insulting to Islam? I assume you want popular religious figures? Do you really want me to come up with their names or can we just stipulate that very popular religious figures, in addition to Bin Laden and Hamas, have reacted to books and other published entities routinely call for capital punishment as punishment for the authors? I mean I can get more but right off the top of my head there's the Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest Islamic group, which had 5000 children in the streets of pakistan chanting "Hang those who insulted the prophet." I'll be happy to find more if you like, but rather than make me do the work can't you just admit that you know I'll find plenty? Popular religious leaders in Islamic countries routinely call for people to be killed in response to other people expressing their views. Its those that call for understanding and dialogue that are unpopular.
I had just asked who can speak for Islam. You just point out has claimed to speak for Islam. Who was arguing that those aren't idiots?

I suppose the Bosniaks, the Albanians, the Pumaks, the Aromanians, and the few Muslim Greeks that remain are also "false converts".
Few Muslim Greeks. Hence most were false converts. I was referring exclusively to Greece.

Err... when was that, my friend?
There were instances, in Cyprus in particular, were resistance to conversion met with the steel of the Janissaries.


*snip*
Indeed, the rising Turkish nationalism was more to blame there. I was trying to establish by whom you thought the genocides were perpetrated.

The fact that you have to go back 100s of years, or even 50 years in the case of Hitler to find a similar case of Western mass murder to that of Saddam just shows how limited the Islamic argument of the Evil Western oppressor is.

Besides the killing of Indians in the Americas was done mainly in the name of fundamentalist religion, not modern western secularism. I think the greatest problem is that mainstream Islamic thought does not understand what our modern culture is about. They think we are still "crusaders" or something.

Cambodia, by the Americans.

Your point about native Americans is not particularily accurate either

It is not my fault, nor my responsibility as a US permanent resident that other people in the nation I have chosen to live in have financially backed murderous regimes.
This is inevitable, theres always going to be some rich bastard that wants to do 'business' in these countries. .

If you voted for Reagan twice, yes. Bush, yes. Bush jr yes. "culpable" may be the correct term.


Bad, emotive phrasing. Indiscriminately killing civilians is worse that toppling a murderous and genocidal government.

How about "killing 30,000 civillians to replace a largely curbed dictator with a Government more Amenable to US influence"?

I had just asked who can speak for Islam. You just point out has claimed to speak for Islam. Who was arguing that those aren't idiots?
I have no idea what you meant here, but let me just take a stab at restating my original point more clearly. I believe there is a popular current that is pervasive across the Muslim world that seeks to censor Western freedom of expression through intimidation. I believe that my belief is backed up by the pronouncements of religious and political leaders within the Muslim world. I believe these sentiments are broadly accepted and supported because these religious and political leaders are very popular in the Muslim world. The popularity of Osama Bin Laden, the landslide victory of Hamas in palestine and the turn out at protests calling for the murder of the Dansih cartoonists when called for by religious leaders across the Muslim world suggests to me that this view is correct.

Few Muslim Greeks. Hence most were false converts. I was referring exclusively to Greece.

I was referring to the Balkans initially. But it could work for solely Greece as well (all the mentioned groups, even the modern-named "Bosniaks", today working for "Macedonian Muslims" as well, were residing in Greece at the moment of its independence and subsequent expansion, and formed a large part - probably largest - of its Macedonian provinces). For the rest of Greece, the Ottomans hadn't even tried to convert someone (the number of Muslim Greeks per se had always been minimal).
As to cultural genocide, note that the nation-states (including my Romania) had carried out persecution and murder of all goups not belonging to the favorite ethnos (Christian Aromanians in Northern Greece disappeared between 1913 and now: the official policy of Greece is still that the few remaining are Romanized or Romanianized Greeks who should learn proper Greek; Romania brought Dobruja from a population of probably 3 Romanians in 1878 to 99% nowadays etc etc).
This is the reality we take into consideration.

There were instances, in Cyprus in particular, were resistance to conversion met with the steel of the Janissaries.

1.Your proof is "it happened in this particular case". Anything happens in a particular case.
2.Even this case is faulty: do you mean to tell me that they fought against their actual families? Because, if we are talking about "Christians killed other Christians", your point falls into utter absurdity.
3.Ottomans didn't ever kill people because they were Christian (as Christians did to Jews or other Christians). They killed them because they were either in rebellion or liable to do so. Of course, this is not to say the murder was less of a murder - but: we were arguing about wether they had a religious reason; I would have to ask you to point out a state of that day and age that did not do that, and then to count that the states in that that day and age that didn't do in fact more than that. Sure you would find some (depending on the subperiod), but the Ottomans stand out as extremely reasonable in comparison. Example: they didn't only not expell any group in the Middle Ages, they were a gathering point for Jews evicted from Spain etc.

Indeed, the rising Turkish nationalism was more to blame there. I was trying to establish by whom you thought the genocides were perpetrated.

If you are to add up the numbers, you'll see that Turks did not engage in any sort of genocide until 1918 or so. From that point on, who didn't (including in "civilised Europe")?

1.Your proof is "it happened in this particular case". Anything happens in a particular case.
2.Even this case is faulty: do you mean to tell me that they fought against their actual families? Because, if we are talking about "Christians killed other Christians", your point falls into utter absurdity.
As far as I can remember they were their actual families, those who had refused to be proselytised over to Islam. Not just Christians in general.


If you are to add up the numbers, you'll see that Turks did not engage in any sort of genocide until 1918 or so. From that point on, who didn't (including in "civilised Europe")?
Indeed. Some were lucky enough to get away with it, others not.

As far as I can remember they were their actual families, those who had refused to be proselytised over to Islam. Not just Christians in general.

Well, as I have said, anything happens in a special case (although I would have doubts about them being assigned specifically to their respective families: "Abdul, you won't return here until you would have killed your mother, sister, and uncle" - it might be a reference to "fighting their own community", which relies on a modern reinvention of the medieval ethos itself). In any case, the devşirme was used to meet outside threats more than anything.

Indeed. Some were lucky enough to get away with it, others not.

Yes indeed.

Well, as I have said, anything happens in a special case (although I would have doubts about them being assigned specifically to their respective families: "Abdul, you won't return here until you would have killed your mother, sister, and uncle" - it might be a reference to "fighting their own community", which relies on a modern reinvention of the medieval ethos itself). In any case, the devşirme was used to meet outside threats more than anything.
It could have been against the community at large, but apparently in certain situations there were cases of brother against brother/father/whatever. Some of the Janissaries didn't even know the relation they shared with the people they were killing.

Some of the Janissaries didn't even know the relation they shared with the people they were killing.
Then... who knew it to tell? Did they go on "This Is Your Life"?

Then... who knew it to tell? Did they go on "This Is Your Life"?
Apparently relatives who survived their attacks and were able of identifying them.

Why did you emphasise the 'female'? Why draw attention to gender? What, you think women can't be psychologists too? :mad:

Apparently relatives who survived their attacks and were able of identifying them.
How were they able, if they supposedly hadn't seen them from infancy/earliest childhood to adulthood?
And think of the mathematical odds: if Janissary regiments were comprised of people from all around the Empire, how the hell did significant-enough-to-be-mentioned cases happen in an invasion of the tiny Cyprus?

I'm used to the nationalist soap operas that are periodically invented in this area of the world. I don't know where you're from, but they seem new to you.

How were they able, if they supposedly hadn't seen them from infancy/earliest childhood to adulthood?
And think of the mathematical odds: if Janissary regiments were comprised of people from all around the Empire, how the hell did significant-enough-to-be-mentioned cases happen in an invasion of the tiny Cyprus?
I think the regiments stationed in Cyprus were mostly from the island itself. I read up on the island's history a long time ago, so I'm not exactly sure how they identified them any more.

I'm used to the nationalist soap operas that are periodically invented in this area of the world. I don't know where you're from, but they seem new to you.
As far as I am concerned it is old history, not really worth whining over, but still worth getting acquainted with. Although I haven't read a lot on it in ages. I am from South Africa, now live in the UK.

Why did you emphasise the 'female'? Why draw attention to gender? What, you think women can't be psychologists too? :mad:
Actually, in much of the Muslim world, no, they can't. Fuck, they can't even drive much less get a PHD. She had to come here to get one.

Another anti-Muslim thread? How long is this going to go on, for fuck's sake?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,384900,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399965,00.html
I just stick to Tariq Ramadan. He knows what he's talking about, he's internationally respected, and he doesn't hold grudges because of something that might have happened to a friend of a friend of his in his childhood. Which is where I suspect most of these critics get their motivation from.

Another anti-Muslim thread? How long is this going to go on, for fuck's sake?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,384900,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399965,00.html
I just stick to Tariq Ramadan. He knows what he's talking about, he's internationally respected, and he doesn't hold grudges because of something that might have happened to a friend of a friend of his in his childhood. Which is where I suspect most of these critics get their motivation from.
Yeah. He really sounds like he's full of shit. :) Kinda like a French version of Louis farrakhan.

Let's all accept the culture of victimization. :D

I think the regiments stationed in Cyprus were mostly from the island itself.

It's safe to assume they weren't (they would have been the unique case, not the rule).

I read up on the island's history a long time ago, so I'm not exactly sure how they identified them any more.

It's safe to assume that they didn't. It is safe to assume that they didn't even state it, but rather that som modern historian with an agenda did it "for them".

As far as I am concerned it is old history, not really worth whining over, but still worth getting acquainted with. Although I haven't read a lot on it in ages. I am from South Africa, now live in the UK.

Historians here have made a habit out of twisting the truth all ways possible, and the tricky part is that they can hide it in otherwise professional works.
My observations tell me that, while nationalism within communist policies has managed to discredit most tenets of nationalism, countries where the "national identity" has not gone through that crisis (Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, parts of the former Yugoslavia) still live in the 19th century.
I want to recommend Imagining the Balkans a wonderful book by the Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova. It is an exploration of all possible cliches about this area.

Historians here have made a habit out of twisting the truth all ways possible, and the tricky part is that they can hide it in otherwise professional works.
My observations tell me that, while nationalism within communist policies has managed to discredit most tenets of nationalism, countries where the "national identity" has not gone through that crisis (Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, parts of the former Yugoslavia) still live in the 19th century.
I want to recommend Imagining the Balkans a wonderful book by the Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova. It is an exploration of all possible cliches about this area.
I'll look into it :) I thought Greece was pretty modernised by the way, or do you mean in terms of political thought?

Let's all accept the culture of victimization. :D
You didn't read either interview, did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
Tariq Ramadan advocates that Muslims living in the West should not view themselves as foreigners or temporary residents in their respective countries, but rather as full citizens with full rights and responsibilities. In some respects, he argues for integration and not alienation from the surrounding society. For example, the main theme of his book, To Be a European Muslim attempts to bridge the gap between being a Muslim and being European.

He also advocates that immigrant parents not confuse culture with religion. Accordingly, Muslim offspring born in Western countries have to adopt the tastes and cultural norms of their country, and not those of their parents' homeland.

He argues that there need be no conflict between being a Muslim and being a full citizen in Western countries, active in the community and caring about it though his detractors debate the sincerity with which this belief is held by Ramadan. He criticizes the 'us vs. them' mentality that some Muslims advocate against the West. He also advocates having Muslim scholars in the West who are versed in Western mores, and not relying on religious studies that come only from the Islamic world.

He is a serious Muslim. He also accepts some part of the religion to be taken quite literal that I wouldn't want to be. And yet, he seems to at least offer a realistic, non-confrontational suggestion as to how Muslims can live in a multicultural society. All I hear from critics is how evil a religion it is, never with any solution presented, but always with the lingering suggestion that we should really get rid of all the savages.

I'll look into it :) I thought Greece was pretty modernised by the way, or do you mean in terms of political thought?
Sorry for the delay.
I meant it in the terms of political discourse. I mean, Romania's nationalism surfaces from time to time, and with an abhorrent rhetoric, but it's never commonplace and official as the crap perspective Greece (including the Greek state) have when it comes to FYROM. And few match its illogical discourse about Cyprus (well, the Turks do).
Also, the late pope was able to visit several Orthodox countries. Among the ones he wasn't able to go to was Greece, and he was threatened with mass protests if he would.

You didn't read either interview, did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan


He is a serious Muslim. He also accepts some part of the religion to be taken quite literal that I wouldn't want to be. And yet, he seems to at least offer a realistic, non-confrontational suggestion as to how Muslims can live in a multicultural society. All I hear from critics is how evil a religion it is, never with any solution presented, but always with the lingering suggestion that we should really get rid of all the savages.
Fair enough on the second interview. He sounds much more reasonable in that one. I'll admit my response was premature in that I had only read the first interview. I'll stand by my assessment on that one. In anycase, the criticism I have of the "Muslim World" isn't aimed at second, third and fourth generation European Muslims. As I have stated several times I am currently engaged to a Persian Muslim who was raised here since she was five. My criticism is aimed at Muslim countries. The interesting thing is that so is his. His whole speal in the second interview is that he hoped that European Muslims can somehow teach Muslims in Muslim countries a better way of life - implying, of course, that they need to be taught a better way of life.

As a matter in fact, I was going to post a thread yesterday about this very subject but the board was down. Here in CA there was a forum at the UCI campus by the College Republicans Club where the cartoons were unveiled for a discussion about Western-Islamic relations. The College Muslims Club did not like that so they protested it - peacfully. The Republicans were inside discussing and the Muslims were outside protesting. Everyone was heard and no buildings were burned, no car bombs blew up, no one called for any of the College Republicans to be hung... This is just how it should be. If only they could learn that in that area over there between India and the Mediteranean. Ah, well... In anycase Europe and America belong to Western culture and if we want to talk about our ideas peacefully we will. Screw them if they think we're gonna change our culture because they're offended by things in our media.

Sorry for the delay.
I meant it in the terms of political discourse. I mean, Romania's nationalism surfaces from time to time, and with an abhorrent rhetoric, but it's never commonplace and official as the crap perspective Greece (including the Greek state) have when it comes to FYROM. And few match its illogical discourse about Cyprus (well, the Turks do).
Also, the late pope was able to visit several Orthodox countries. Among the ones he wasn't able to go to was Greece, and he was threatened with mass protests if he would.
Yes, I heard about that. It really was idiotic. I mean in this day and age, 800 years after the Schism, they reject a man who has been trying his entire life to reconcile these differences. No better than a bunch of rednecks.

Yes, I heard about that. It really was idiotic. I mean in this day and age, 800 years after the Schism, they reject a man who has been trying his entire life to reconcile these differences. No better than a bunch of rednecks.
Especially since that kind of mentality has seeped into a lot of information on the Balkans, and especially the "everpresent enemy" the Ottoman Empire/Turkey/Islam.

Especially since that kind of mentality has seeped into a lot of information on the Balkans, and especially the "everpresent enemy" the Ottoman Empire/Turkey/Islam.
Even if Turkey wanted to, I think it has too many of its own problems nowadays to actually be an "everpresent enemy." Especially now that it wants to enter the EU it has to be particularly careful.

Why did you emphasise the 'female'? Why draw attention to gender? What, you think women can't be psychologists too? :mad:
I did it for the reason PsycoticDan said.

Even if Turkey wanted to, I think it has too many of its own problems nowadays to actually be an "everpresent enemy." Especially now that it wants to enter the EU it has to be particularly careful.
Frankly, I don't think it means to.
And Greece its trying to bury the long Greek love affair with the Ottoman state (by contrasting it with the divorce). Consider the Phanariotes, the military and merchand fleet, the countless Greek sultan and pashas... The modern Greek identity finds such collaboration absurd, unlike the people who were collaborating.
It is the same for all other Balkan cultures: Moldavia gave the Empire its gratest composer, the Albanians comprised the basis for its civil defence and police force, the Wallachians its agents in Central European cattle trade, the Bulgarians its cultivators, etc. The modern age thesis, introduced cca. 1830, has impied that they should somehow be ashamed of their past. Consider Byron's idiotic and romantic assumption that he was fughting for "the hellenic spirit" and "the values of Ancient Europe" - he declaered himself "disappointed in the Greeks" (as if the Greeks were to be held somehow responsible for not meeting up with a poet's fantasy). The following 170 years have meant the Balkans trying to fit into what someone else told them was the norm - that is why the past is unconfortable.
If I have to look through a Romanian history textbook from even ten years ago, I would discover a blatant lie per page. You cannot imagine what a scandal there was before they finally managed to replace them (and make it legal for sources other than the government to publish them - which happened only in 1999).

*snip*
Thank God Britain's educational system is relatively exempt from nationalist bias. I took History as one of my subjects, and it was surprisingly neutral; no nationalist evocations, just a scientific approach to the subject.

Was Romania one of the Eastern Block nations btw?

Was Romania one of the Eastern Block nations btw?
Yes. But with some originality from 1968 onwards.

Yes. But with some originality from 1968 onwards.
How so exactly?

I was actually quite surprised to find out that you're Romanian. Your English is vastly better than that of most other Romanians I have met.

How so exactly?

Well, our leader Ceausescu almost went to war with the Soviets when they invaded Czechoslovakia. He wanted to cut off most links with Moscow, and manipulated anti-Soviet feeling in the population by showing that Romania had an independent voice. The population armed itself, and all that, and, when the crisis was over, we were considered divorced. Although the Soviets still controlled most of our commerce, Romanians seemed to believe that independence was the norm, and gave Ceausescu a blank check which they lived to regret.
The West was also in love with the guy: Nixon and Ford both visited Bucharest, Carter used him in his external policy, de Gaulle hoped to have him as an example that a European ideology can tear down the ideological divide, Queen Elizabeth gave him a carriage ride through London (which he had asked for) because British plane manufacturers wanted a Romanian contract etc.
But they understood that he was a nationalist Stalinist at heart, especially after he began backing leftwing terrorists in Arab states etc, and his dream of paying up the large foreign debt we had screwed up our economy, made hunger a reality (as well as the lack of basic supplies), and made me personally be born with black-brown teeth (the second set is white, don't worry, but I've had my share of fun in infancy). He had other ambitions, including making our population skyrocket, so he banned abortion. He militarized the society, and tried to ensure that we can face all threats from the outside (including capitalist, this time).
This is the second point of our originality: we were the only Eastern Bloc country to have overthrown communism with bloodshed and street battles (and assistance from both the CIA and KGB).

I was actually quite surprised to find out that you're Romanian. Your English is vastly better than that of most other Romanians I have met.

Thanks.

*snip*
Interesting insight. Maybe Romania's future will be brighter once it enters the EU.

Oh yes you bloody can.

yeah we killed a crapload of native americans in our expansion westward...but I would like to think we are getting a little better. we still are far from perfect but we are ever so slightly improving.

yeah we killed a crapload of native americans in our expansion westward...but I would like to think we are getting a little better. we still are far from perfect but we are ever so slightly improving.
Yeah. You now can kill them without having to actually fight them. You now can simply launch an ICBM.

That wasn't the context of her quote:

They were both talking about America, the state...not America the continent. I really do think she is absolving America the state of blame for the genocide of natives there.

Genocide would necessitate the state eradicate an entire Indian Nation, to my historical knowledge within the realm of territory presently occupied by the USA, was genocide perpetrated upon but a single Indian Nation within the region by settlers, and such predates the establishment of the present state.

Genocide would necessitate the state eradicate an entire Indian Nation, to my historical knowledge within the realm of territory presently occupied by the USA, was genocide perpetrated upon but a single Indian Nation within the region by settlers, and such predates the establishment of the present state.

However the USA has been guilty of practicing Assimilation which basically entailed trying to erase all traces of Native Culture from its people and their children by homogenizing them with mainstream Western society via education and/or Christianity.

That's a convenient way to wash the US's hands of the mass killings throughout Latin America, all sanctioned because of a dreadful fear of communism.

That's a convenient way to slant the argument away from the point that no culture is innocent, and no one's ancestors were innocent...

However, The Crusades, the Native Americans, The opposition of Communism, The Spanish Civil War, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki summed together is no defense for muslims committing terrorism.

But she didn't stick to recent events...she mentioned the Islamic Crusades and other 'ancient history' as well.

She begins with recent events, or more importantly, with problems within her own culture of interest, which need to be solved and answered.... Bin Muhammed's response to her is to bring up the Iraq war, and move all the way back to the Crusades... Wafa mentions the Islamic Crusades in response to this tirade of avoidance by Bin Muhammed, side stepping the initial premise, by pointing the finger elsewhere, while Wafa begins by offering a way to fix the problem.

Wafa, I think, probably had a good direction, but was tricked by Bin Muhammed's side-stepping of the issue into irrelevant points... The entire debate is unconstructive, since no argument is actually made in the end, by either party, rather it turns into a cultural shit-slinging context over brutal historical acts, none of which is relevant to the OPENING PREMISE and problem addressed nor its possible solution.....

The debate can be summed as follows:

Wafa: -Combat Radical Islam through Education
Bin: -The West has commited so many atrocities upon us, we are victims!
Wafa: -The East's hands are no cleaner over that. The West is my ideological home.
Bin: -You Indian Killer...

Genocide would necessitate the state eradicate an entire Indian Nation, to my historical knowledge within the realm of territory presently occupied by the USA, was genocide perpetrated upon but a single Indian Nation within the region by settlers, and such predates the establishment of the present state.
Umm no. It can still be genocide if not all members of that group have been killed. There are still Tutsi living in Rwanda. Yet it still is called genocide.

Umm no. It can still be genocide if not all members of that group have been killed. There are still Tutsi living in Rwanda. Yet it still is called genocide.

For it to be genocide it has to match the definition of the term:

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

The above case fits genocide, as the Hutu actively planned the operation to exterminate all Tutsi.

This definition does not fit, however, all situations involving native american (indeed, only a few, such as wars in the New England colonies upon tribes such as the Mohegan).

Wafa Sultan seems to be very well vcersed and educated, whereas everything what this Muhammad say is mindless bullshit :rolleyes:
He basically takes the war crimes of other nations as justification on why the Islam is behaving like this now :headbang:
Also he says, that there are hardly any innocent non-muslims, so it would be ok to "do away" with them. :mad:

No wonder Islam has such an awful reputation if they have fucked up morons like him speaking for it...

For it to be genocide it has to match the definition of the term:

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

The above case fits genocide, as the Hutu actively planned the operation to exterminate all Tutsi.

This definition does not fit, however, all situations involving native american (indeed, only a few, such as wars in the New England colonies upon tribes such as the Mohegan).
Something tells me the Cherokee or Sioux who were persecuted and deported into reservations, where they froze and starved to death or died from "firewater", don't see it like that.
In the best case thats ethnic cleansing.

The muslim hunt for the Danish cartoonists continues.
12 muslim men hunt after cartoonist daughter.

Caricaturist's daughter sought
The daughter of one of the artists behind one of the controversial newspaper caricatures of the prophet Mohammed was sought out at her school by twelve Muslim men, a leading Danish politician claims.
Jens Rohde, political chairman of the prime minister's Liberal Party, made this claim during a debate program on Danish television on Thursday evening.

The twelve cartoonists are now in hiding after receiving death threats.

"And a daughter of one of the artists was sought out by twelve Muslim men at a school, they wanted to get hold of this daughter. Luckily she was not at school," Rohde said.

Rohde told Danish news agency Ritzau that he received this information from a meeting with the artists.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article1239506.ece

The muslim hunt for the Danish cartoonists continues.
12 muslim men hunt after cartoonist daughter.

Caricaturist's daughter sought
The daughter of one of the artists behind one of the controversial newspaper caricatures of the prophet Mohammed was sought out at her school by twelve Muslim men, a leading Danish politician claims.
Jens Rohde, political chairman of the prime minister's Liberal Party, made this claim during a debate program on Danish television on Thursday evening.

The twelve cartoonists are now in hiding after receiving death threats.

"And a daughter of one of the artists was sought out by twelve Muslim men at a school, they wanted to get hold of this daughter. Luckily she was not at school," Rohde said.

Rohde told Danish news agency Ritzau that he received this information from a meeting with the artists.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article1239506.ece
Way to go :rolleyes: Fundamentalist fools...

Way to go :rolleyes: Fundamentalist fools...

And it's morons like those who give all the "Exterminate All Muslims" nutjobs more ammunition to preach hate.

yeah well in their mind they thought what they were doing was perfectly alright so why shouldn't the people at the school cooperate after all God wants the cartoonists dead so it is ok. Don't expect complicated thinking from simple minds. Maybe a low cunning.

And it's morons like those who give all the "Exterminate All Muslims" nutjobs more ammunition to preach hate.
They haven't the reasoning ability to realise this though.