NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090401107.html

Like Fatimah, most of the debaters attend Al-Huda School in College Park. It is run by Dar-us-Salaam, one of the Washington area's most conservative Muslim congregations. Many of its members believe that, in order to be true to their faith, they should live apart from secular society as much as possible. The congregation's Web site describes how it hopes one day to become a self-contained Islamic community.

The kind of Islam practiced at Dar-us-Salaam, known as Salafism, once had a significant foothold among area Muslims, in large part because of an aggressive missionary effort by the government of Saudi Arabia. Salafism and its strict Saudi version, known as Wahhabism, struck a chord with many Muslim immigrants who took a dim view of the United States' sexually saturated pop culture and who were ambivalent about participating in a secular political system. It was also attractive to young Muslims searching for a more "authentic" Islam than what their Westernized immigrant parents offered.

But the discovery that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Saudi and that their violent al-Qaeda ideology was rooted in Wahhabism had a particularly deep impact on Salafis, whose theology and practices were suddenly suspect.

An informative article, up to that point. But, we'll leave out something:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060825-110150-5430r.htm

A federal judge yesterday sentenced a former third-grade teacher at a Muslim school in Maryland to 15 years in prison for providing support to a terrorist organization known as the "Virginia jihad network," which used paintball games to train for a holy war.
At the sentencing hearing before U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton, Ali Asad Chandia maintained his innocence and pledged to exact revenge against prosecutors in the afterlife, saying that "those who participated in making my children orphans ... should just remember that the day of judgment is on the way."
Chandia, 29, who taught at the Al-Huda School in College Park, was convicted in June on three counts of providing material support in what prosecutors called a scheme by Islamic extremists to use force to drive India out of the disputed Kashmir territory in South Asia. A federal jury acquitted him of a fourth count of supporting terrorists.

Still think that the ideology has nothing to do with someone becoming a terrorist? Think again.

"Terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba rely on a network of individuals to carry out their deadly operations," said U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg in Alexandria.

Seems to me like you need a network of similarly-minded individuals, who hate Western culture.

I wonder why the Washington Post article leaves out that little tidbit of information.

why do you hate muslims?

So one person does something bad and, thus, the entire school of thought is bad?

We should just blow up the Earth right now!

why do you hate muslims?

A Muslim stole his woman and took off in his car.

why do you hate muslims?
It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

So one person does something bad and, thus, the entire school of thought is bad?

We should just blow up the Earth right now!

Oooh! Way more than one person, and you know it.

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg


I'm reasonably sure those guys are dead.

I'm reasonably sure those guys are dead.

Not all the people who sent them and supported them, and who were happy they did it.

Oooh! Way more than one person, and you know it.

Meh ... based on your original post, one person - Chandra - was it.

Anything else is conjecture.

Not all the people who sent them and supported them, and who were happy they did it.

You should be happy they did it. It gives vent for your anger and hatred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090401107.html



An informative article, up to that point. But, we'll leave out something:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060825-110150-5430r.htm



Still think that the ideology has nothing to do with someone becoming a terrorist? Think again.



Seems to me like you need a network of similarly-minded individuals, who hate Western culture.

I wonder why the Washington Post article leaves out that little tidbit of information.

Er...

You mean this bit?

One of the area's most prominent Salafi preachers, Ali al-Timimi, is in prison, convicted on charges that he incited young Muslims to wage war against the United States.

Er...

You mean this bit?

Nope. Different person. Ali Asad Chandia.

Why don't they mention HOW MANY came from that school?

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

Aw man, you just get better and better :D

Not all the people who sent them and supported them, and who were happy they did it.

According to our President, the events of 9/11 have made our country stronger, more secure, etc. So I guess he's happy they did it, too.

One doesn't need to party in the streets to be happy something happened.

An informative article, up to that point. But, we'll leave out something:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060825-110150-5430r.htm


I wonder why the Washington Post article leaves out that little tidbit of information.



Erm, so the washington post is an evil muslimterroristliberal organization because it didn't mention in one article referring to one school how one teacher was arrested at that school?

You've convinced me, DK. LETS STERILIZE A BILLION PEOPLE AND FORCE THEM TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY! ;)

Aw man, you just get better and better :D

He is fun, isn't he? :)

According to our President, the events of 9/11 have made our country stronger, more secure, etc. So I guess he's happy they did it, too.

One doesn't need to party in the streets to be happy something happened.

That's a stretch. I can always count on you for the most cynical representation of anything.

That's a stretch. I can always count on you for the most cynical representation of anything.

Well I have honed my cynicism skills pretty well over the last 6 years.

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

I declare war on Christians. Its not war, its self-preservation
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

I declare war on Christians. Its not war, its self-preservation

I tried that once. They pussed out.

A Muslim stole his woman and took off in his car.

ah. thats what it was.

I declare war on Christians. Its not war, its self-preservation
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Doesn't follow.

Name a Christian organization with millions of public followers that bombed Oklahoma City.

That took credit for it.

So what's the big debate about? If this "Al-Huda School" is a potential problem why don't we use our neat new patriot act powers to find out what's going on there and if necessary deport or imprison everyone involved? Makes more sense than monitoring people's google searches or something.

I declare war on Christians. Its not war, its self-preservation
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

I really am getting sick of the whole "but christians are bad too!" talking point. We all know that, and it is irelevent to the debate.

A Muslim stole his woman and took off in his car.

And kicked his dog. *nod*

I really am getting sick of the whole "but christians are bad too!" talking point. We all know that, and it is irelevent to the debate.

how is that?

So what's the big debate about? If this "Al-Huda School" is a potential problem why don't we use our neat new patriot act powers to find out what's going on there and if necessary deport or imprison everyone involved? Makes more sense than monitoring people's google searches or something.

It's probably already wired for sound, and full of FBI informants. Which is why the most recent bunch of terrorists were caught and convicted - at that school.

Much better than monitoring people's forum postings.

Profiling makes sense here.

Doesn't follow.

Name a Christian organization with millions of public followers that bombed Oklahoma City.

That took credit for it.

I see, so the real crime is in being organized and taking credit. If you are unorganized and publically silent, it's OK to be a terrorist.

how is that?

The debate is about a school known as Al-Huda, An islamic school. DK is trying to assert that religious terrorists need institutions, like Al-Huda as bases of action,and that we need to take action. Where does christian terrorism come into that picture?

I see, so the real crime is in being organized and taking credit. If you are unorganized and publically silent, it's OK to be a terrorist.

It's hard to blame the group (or ideology) unless a distinct pattern emerges.

Like the pattern among the Salafists.

Profiling makes sense here.

not really, all profiling does is incite it's victims and creates a blind-spot in security.

The debate is about a school known as Al-Huda, An islamic school. DK is trying to assert that religious terrorists need institutions, like Al-Huda as bases of action,and that we need to take action. Where does christian terrorism come into that picture?

Hmmm. In the US, there has been very strenuous use of the RICO act to threaten (and close) churches and Christian schools and Christian groups associated with abortion clinic bombings.

Plenty were closed. Others intimidated into closing.

It works.

Why aren't we closing the al-Huda school?

Polling by Bagby found that about 8 percent of worshipers at U.S. mosques favor a Salafi approach. But although Salafi Muslims are more isolated now, some scholars say their approach to Islam could become more appealing in response to increasingly negative views of Muslims among Americans and vitriolic Islam-bashing on the Internet.

Hey, Deep Kimchi! Did you happen to read this sentence in the first article you quoted?

How do you feel knowing you are supporting the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the USA?

not really, all profiling does is incite it's victims and creates a blind-spot in security.

So you're saying that searching an 80-year old grandma who is a Methodist from Iowa is going to help stop another hijacking?

So you're saying that searching an 80-year old grandma who is a Methodist from Iowa is going to help stop another hijacking?

Well, as an eighty year old grandmother, she might not have noticed a terrorist placing explosives in her handbag.

Hey, Deep Kimchi! Did you happen to read this sentence in the first article you quoted?

How do you feel knowing you are supporting the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the USA?

I happen not to believe that. What would you have us do, nothing?

Let's see who tried that. Ah, Clinton. The WTC was bombed in 1993, and we did nothing. At all. For years.

And they came back and tried it again.

So you're saying that searching an 80-year old grandma who is a Methodist from Iowa is going to help stop another hijacking?

no, but searching every person who is acting suspicious, or has a large quantity of wires, explosives, suspicious unmarked liquids, knives, guns, and all other weapons regardless of race or religion definetely will.

It's hard to blame the group (or ideology) unless a distinct pattern emerges.

Nonsense. It's easy to blame any group or ideology, or ethnicity, or religion. Pattern recognition is not much of a factor.

So you're saying that searching an 80-year old grandma who is a Methodist from Iowa is going to help stop another hijacking?

There is never going to be another 9/11 type hijacking. Passengers and crew won't let it happen. Five or six people who stand up mid flight and start screaming about Allah are going to be five or six people getting pounded by the rest of the passengers in short order.

It is wise, however, to keep an eye on religious organizations that may be involved in breeding a new generation of terrorists.

no, but searching every person who is acting suspicious, or has a large quantity of wires, explosives, suspicious unmarked liquids, knives, guns, and all other weapons regardless of race or religion definetely will.

Nowadays, you're more likely to find that at a Muslim school than anywhere else.

So why wouldn't you look there first?

Seems to be producing good results in the UK as well...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1863813,00.html

What, do you think that Islamic terrorists come from Hogwarts?

There is never going to be another 9/11 type hijacking. Passengers and crew won't let it happen. Five or six people who stand up mid flight and start screaming about Allah are going to be five or six people getting pounded by the rest of the passengers in short order.

It is wise, however, to keep an eye on religious organizations that may be involved in breeding a new generation of terrorists.

I'm more than willing to have the Feds use the RICO act against Muslim schools the way they used it to shut down white supremacists and radical Christian groups that bombed abortion clinics.

The tactic worked quite well. I didn't see "an increase in terrorism" or "a backlash" due to the Feds focusing on those organizations.

The sooner that every Salafist school in the country is closed down, the better. The UK is already starting.

Let's see who tried that. Ah, Clinton. The WTC was bombed in 1993, and we did nothing. At all. For years.

just because we didn't invade anyone doesn't mean we didn't tae any action, we arrested, detained, tried and convicted those responsible or atleast tried to.

no action, is better than wrong action, remember when we bombed that harmless pharmeceutical company after our embassy got bombed in Kenya?

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

What a good demagogue... :rolleyes:

just because we didn't invade anyone doesn't mean we didn't tae any action, we arrested, detained, tried and convicted those responsible or atleast tried to.


No, we didn't do anything effective.

no action, is better than wrong action, remember when we bombed that harmless pharmeceutical company after our embassy got bombed in Kenya?

No action is worse than wrong action. And the right action is better than firing a cruise missile at exactly the moment timed to distract the public from perjury.

I'm more than willing to have the Feds use the RICO act against Muslim schools the way they used it to shut down white supremacists and radical Christian groups that bombed abortion clinics.

The tactic worked quite well. I didn't see "an increase in terrorism" or "a backlash" due to the Feds focusing on those organizations.

The sooner that every Salafist school in the country is closed down, the better. The UK is already starting.

The authorities should shut down any organisation or institution that supports terrorists, unless they are being monitored closely in the hopes of catching terrorists.

You make the assumption, though, that every Salafist school in the country supports terrorism. Not very logical.

Nowadays, you're more likely to find that at a Muslim school than anywhere else.

So why wouldn't you look there first?

Seems to be producing good results in the UK as well...


if a madrassa is preaching hatred, and stockpiling weapons, then raid the school and detain its leaders for questioning, and confiscate the weapons.

If a madrassa is preaching moderate Islam(yes it exists it's actually holds the majority), has a balenced curriculum, is on par with Educational standards, and is effectively preparing muslim children for the future, Why should it be under surveillance? or god forbid, raided?

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi;11642001]Nowadays, you're more likely to find that at a Muslim school than anywhere else.

So why wouldn't you look there first?

Seems to be producing good results in the UK as well...
QUOTE]

if a madrassa is preaching hatred, and stockpiling weapons, then raid the school and detain its leaders for questioning, and confiscate the weapons.

If a madrassa is preaching moderate Islam(yes it exists it's actually holds the majority), has a balenced curriculum, is on par with Educational standards, and is effectively preparing muslim children for the future, Why should it be under surveillance? or god forbid, raided?
How do you know if it's moderate or if it's preaching hate if it's not under a little surveilance from time to time?

Erm, so the washington post is an evil muslimterroristliberal organization because it didn't mention in one article referring to one school how one teacher was arrested at that school?

You've convinced me, DK. LETS STERILIZE A BILLION PEOPLE AND FORCE THEM TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY! ;)

And note out of all the publications he could have picked to "refute" (*mimes quote a la Doctor Evil) the Washington Post, he had to use The Moonie Times.

And note out of all the publications he could have picked to "refute" (*mimes quote a la Doctor Evil) the Washington Post, he had to use The Moonie Times.

Doesn't make the refutation false, does it?

No, it doesn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090201096.html

Even the Washington Post, in another article, knows who Chandia is, what the school is, and how many terrorists came from there.

There is never going to be another 9/11 type hijacking. Passengers and crew won't let it happen. Five or six people who stand up mid flight and start screaming about Allah are going to be five or six people getting pounded by the rest of the passengers in short order.

It is wise, however, to keep an eye on religious organizations that may be involved in breeding a new generation of terrorists.

Even if they arent indoctrinating and recruiting their disgruntled youths, many are giving financial support to terrorists.

Do we ask them nicely not to do this and trust them to comply?

Or rather, speak to them a the language everyone understands?

How do you know if it's moderate or if it's preaching hate if it's not under a little surveilance from time to time?

a very good question, hopefully a student would reject the hateful philosophy and report the school...if not, maybe some sort of system of random inspections, the third and last resort would be a small amount of surveilence perhaps an undercover agent applying to be a teacher...

What does the kashmiri border dispute have to do with hating western culture?

Most terrorists dont hate western culture, they hate the western foreign policy that kills their co-religionists and families.

Dammit, DK, you're doing it again! You're saying all Muslims are terrorists! You're tarring an entire religion! They aren't even real Muslims anyway 'cause Islam is against terrorism! This is pure bigotry! It's bigotry! It's racism! BIGOTRY!! RACISMMMMMMMM!!!

(Sister Mary Elephant voice): Thank you :D

What does the kashmiri border dispute have to do with hating western culture?

It is no longer just a border dispute. In fact it never was.

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

What's left that's worth preserving, once you've sacrificed everything worthwhile in aid of facilitating Fearless Leader's wanton paranoia? Really, now - what's left to preserve?

Capital?

(Snips snide sarcastic post)

Thank you Meir Kahane Junior. Your wet dream of deporting each and every Muslim to the Moon may come true yet.

Thank you Meir Kahane Junior. Your wet dream of deporting each and every Muslim to the Moon may come true yet.

(Sister Mary Elephant voice) Thank you :D

So, you want an organisation made up entirely of christians who conducted bombing campaigns ...

Ever heard of the IRA? PIRA? UDF? UDA? UFF?

All of them are, or were, irish terrorist groups (depending on your definition of terrorist of course).

They all merrily bombed London (Especially the IRA) for years. However through talking to them, getting the groups to engage in diplomacy, there's now a cease fire agreement in place. Possibly a rather tenuous one, but at least not many people are shooting each other or bombing each other.

Now how is that different from the USA vs Islam? If the British government had simply tried to crush the resistance then we'd still be fighting. You're not going to convince people to lay down thier arms if you just martyred their brothers.

And, come on, how the hell is the world "more secure" now? Terrorism has shot waaaaay up since the "War on Terror" started. 9/11 was a tragedy, and I don't deny that. But invading 2 countries and vilifying an entire religion isn't really helping any.

[QUOTE=Pyotr;11642037]
How do you know if it's moderate or if it's preaching hate if it's not under a little surveilance from time to time?

So how do you know I'm not engaged in subversive activity without the telescreen in my room to watch me?

And kicked his dog. *nod*

And did the whole, "flaming paper bag full of crap on the doorstep" thing too.

They also sneak into his home at night and hide his car keys.

I see, so the real crime is in being organized and taking credit. If you are unorganized and publically silent, it's OK to be a terrorist. No its just typically much less deadly.

What nobody understands is that Wahhabist Islam is not any more representative of the whole of Islam than Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) are of Christianity. Yes, fundamentalists of all breeds are ideologically connected to terrorism. Duh. But that says nothing about Muslims in general.

Dammit, DK, you're doing it again! You're saying all Muslims are terrorists! You're tarring an entire religion! They aren't even real Muslims anyway 'cause Islam is against terrorism! This is pure bigotry! It's bigotry! It's racism! BIGOTRY!! RACISMMMMMMMM!!!

(Sister Mary Elephant voice): Thank you :D

You're so cute when you're in fanboi mode.

And we do need people like you, to sit on the sidelines shaking your pom poms to entertain during the arguments and debates and other grown-up things you wouldn't be interested in.

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

Funny...

All I see is a weak attempt to publicly justify your bigotry.

Not all muslims are terrorists,however there is no doubt that there are muslims who enjoy causing chaos and hate america and the rest of the wast.They were around before 9/11 and they are still around now.
The problem comes about when people(naming no names;) DK)blame the muslims community completly.Some 'terrorists' were not 'terrorists' before 9/11.By this I mean,when 9/11 happened(and it is good to remember that the real terrorists whop commited the atrocity of 9/11 wanted to provoke even greater atrocities in order to recruit, give themselves and their organisations power and to try and change the ways of the west, which they have done with help from the patriot act and in the uk the terroprism acts of 2002 and 2005)America and the rest of the wast effectivly declared war on 'terror' which many muslims interpreted as war on islam,thus producing new terrorists.It didnt help that the 'west' invaded iraq,since many in iraq are afraid of americans, and many hate americans thanks to thier involvement in the first gulf war.I know many are saying that sadam was a murderer and needed to be gotten rid of, but we knew about the murder of the kurds over 10 years ago, why didnt we do something them?
There are muslim extremists who want to kill and maim and terrorise,but that is not all muslims.I can understand DK's point of veiw,he disagrees with muslim teaching, just as I disagree with many christian teachings,and thier belief system is fair game, but not all muslims are terrorists.Treating them as such becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.It is important to remember that extremism does not grow is isolation,they have reason to hate america and the west(we have made a mess of the middle east since 1878(possibly befor)when britain invaded afghanistan to curb russian expansionism)however twisted their veiws may be,however misrepresented the facts(they are not the only ones with propaganda problems-remember sadaam is hitler,sadaam and al quieda are linked, sadaam has wmds ect ect ad nauseum)there is a basis in truth.Many terrorist attacks in northern ireland have been prevented by brining the terrorists into mainstream politics.Terrorism is made worse by disenfanchisement(is that a word?)and detachment from mainstream life and politics.Maybe we should be more undersanding(after all if you had half your family blown up by americans, or been shot while your home was raided by americans, then you would want to blow buildings up too-its not right-but its true)and actually sort things out without making things worse.

Not all muslims are terrorists,however there is no doubt that there are muslims who enjoy causing chaos and hate america and the rest of the wast.They were around before 9/11 and they are still around now.
The problem comes about when people(naming no names;) DK)blame the muslims community completly.Some 'terrorists' were not 'terrorists' before 9/11.By this I mean,when 9/11 happened(and it is good to remember that the real terrorists whop commited the atrocity of 9/11 wanted to provoke even greater atrocities in order to recruit, give themselves and their organisations power and to try and change the ways of the west, which they have done with help from the patriot act and in the uk the terroprism acts of 2002 and 2005)America and the rest of the wast effectivly declared war on 'terror' which many muslims interpreted as war on islam,thus producing new terrorists.It didnt help that the 'west' invaded iraq,since many in iraq are afraid of americans, and many hate americans thanks to thier involvement in the first gulf war.I know many are saying that sadam was a murderer and needed to be gotten rid of, but we knew about the murder of the kurds over 10 years ago, why didnt we do something them?
There are muslim extremists who want to kill and maim and terrorise,but that is not all muslims.I can understand DK's point of veiw,he disagrees with muslim teaching, just as I disagree with many christian teachings,and thier belief system is fair game, but not all muslims are terrorists.Treating them as such becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.It is important to remember that extremism does not grow is isolation,they have reason to hate america and the west(we have made a mess of the middle east since 1878(possibly befor)when britain invaded afghanistan to curb russian expansionism)however twisted their veiws may be,however misrepresented the facts(they are not the only ones with propaganda problems-remember sadaam is hitler,sadaam and al quieda are linked, sadaam has wmds ect ect ad nauseum)there is a basis in truth.Many terrorist attacks in northern ireland have been prevented by brining the terrorists into mainstream politics.Terrorism is made worse by disenfanchisement(is that a word?)and detachment from mainstream life and politics.Maybe we should be more undersanding(after all if you had half your family blown up by americans, or been shot while your home was raided by americans, then you would want to blow buildings up too-its not right-but its true)and actually sort things out without making things worse.

My eyes.... my eyes.....

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

*insert question*
"Uhh... uh... 9/11, terrorism, Nazi supporters!"
*applause for stupid douchebag*

Chandia, 29, who taught at the Al-Huda School in College Park, was convicted in June on three counts of providing material support in what prosecutors called a scheme by Islamic extremists to use force to drive India out of the disputed Kashmir territory in South Asia. A federal jury acquitted him of a fourth count of supporting terrorists.

Still think that the ideology has nothing to do with someone becoming a terrorist? Think again.



Seems to me like you need a network of similarly-minded individuals, who hate Western culture.

I wonder why the Washington Post article leaves out that little tidbit of information.

Outside of actual Indians, India doesn't have a bigger fan than me. And maybe 60 year old Beatles fans. But how does that make someone a terrorist? It sounds like a guy who's taking one side in a military conflict. India and Pakistan have both been pretty brutal in the Kashmir conflict.

Also, the Washington Times is a notoriously hyper-right wing newspaper run by Sun Myung Moon. It goes beyond bias. They're like FOX news but insane instead of just evil.

Here's what I don't get. DK posts that picture of the WTC and says it's about self-preservation, but does anyone really believe that al Qaeda can get sufficient numbers of people together to mount a successful invasion of the US? To mount even an invasion of Europe, which is substantially closer?

Bush and Rumsfeld have been making the appeasement argument, but that's ridiculous for this reason alone: in 1938, Germany was the most powerful nation in Europe. It had the 2nd largest economy in the world and the strongest military--the US Army at the time was about the size of Finland's. Iran, by comparison, is the biggest dog left standing in the Middle East, and yet the Pentagon's budget is twice Iran's GDP. They're a threat to our way of life? What kind of bed-wetting bitch do you have to be to be scared of them?

The 9/11 attacks were horrible, but a little perspective, please. 3,000 people died that day, out of a nation of nearly 300,000,000. The people who pulled off that attack are less a threat to the stability of this nation than the 40% of the population that refuses to take even the minimal role of voting for one's government.

According to our President, the events of 9/11 have made our country stronger, more secure, etc.



Hee hee I think he was pulling the collective legs of the American People!

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg
Then why didn't the US invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

SAUDI ARABIA'S DUBIOUS DENIALS OF INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm)

Yeah I know, Bush and the royal Saud's are best buddies. :rolleyes:

So one person does something bad and, thus, the entire school of thought is bad?

We should just blow up the Earth right now!

If their ideology teaches hate and intolerance, then how can it be good?

Funny...

All I see is a weak attempt to publicly justify your bigotry.
It is because Americans drive too many cars?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11617712&postcount=99

Dependancy on oil = hatred for Muslims?

Then why didn't the US invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

SAUDI ARABIA'S DUBIOUS DENIALS OF INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm)

Yeah I know, Bush and the royal Saud's are best buddies. :rolleyes:

Saudi Arabia is home to Islam's most holiest shrine, the black mosque of mecca. Invading Saudi Arabia for any other reason than pure necessity would be suicidal, as it would enrage many muslims and lead to a huge increase in terrorist attacks.

Also, Saudi Arabia is a reliable supplier of oil.

It is because Americans drive too many cars?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11617712&postcount=99

Dependancy on oil = hatred for Muslims?

Funny...and I thought Canadians consumed more energy per capita than anyone else in the world.

If their ideology teaches hate and intolerance, then how can it be good?

Plenty of people love christianity, but the Old Testament god is full of hatred and intolerance.

Plenty of people love christianity, but the Old Testament god is full of hatred and intolerance.

Only Christians stopped practicing witch-haning and stonings some 300 years ago, give or take half a century.

Only Christians stopped practicing witch-haning and stonings some 300 years ago, give or take half a century.

Some of the most bloody-minded people in recent history claim the mantle of Christianity. Or do you think it was just a mistake when Bush referred to the war on terror as a crusade ina a speech back in 2001?

Some of the most bloody-minded people in recent history claim the mantle of Christianity. Or do you think it was just a mistake when Bush referred to the war on terror as a crusade ina a speech back in 2001?

Are you saying George Bush is "one of the most bloody-minded people in recent history"?

Even if you are, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What we're arguing is about the insitutional practices of Christianity that don't exist anymore, not what some politician does in the name of Christianity.

Are you saying George Bush is "one of the most bloody-minded people in recent history"? Yeah. And by recent history, I'm talking about my lifetime, which began in 1968. Dubya's in the top 50 at least.

Even if you are, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What we're arguing is about the insitutional practices of Christianity that don't exist anymore, not what some politician does in the name of Christianity.

You can't really get away with that distinction in this case, because Bush's base, the group that dragged him to victory we've been told, was conservative christians who were drawn by his faith and his willingness to express it publicly.

But even if we go with your point of view, then you're guilty of making a gross exaggeration about Islam. There are more than a billion muslims worldwide, and the vast majority of them don't teach hatred and intolerance, and yet you would judge the entire group by the small faction that does. Well, if you can do that for Muslims, I can do the same for Christians.

My point, in case it isn't clear yet, is that making generalizations about groups of that size is stupid.

Funny...and I thought Canadians consumed more energy per capita than anyone else in the world.
I didn't make the quote and I don't hate Muslims. Your point?

The 9/11 attacks were horrible, but a little perspective, please. 3,000 people died that day, out of a nation of nearly 300,000,000. The people who pulled off that attack are less a threat to the stability of this nation than the 40% of the population that refuses to take even the minimal role of voting for one's government.

I think your the one thats lacking the perspective here. The 3,000 people were the least of the implications from the attacks to be frank. The real implications of the attack was the fact that a bunch of technologically primitive people half a planet away were able to partially destroy the Headquarters of the mightiest military on the planet. In addition, the strike caused more economic damage to the US and world economies then the GDP of Afghanistan for the next 500 years combined. If the strike on the Capitol had been sucessful the very heads of our Government could have been killed en mass. To break this down to hey only 3000 people were killed whats the big deal is either deliberatly ignoring the other huge factors and huge changes in society that occured because of the attacks or you havnt spent enough time thinking about these things.

I think your the one thats lacking the perspective here. The 3,000 people were the least of the implications from the attacks to be frank. The real implications of the attack was the fact that a bunch of technologically primitive people half a planet away were able to partially destroy the Headquarters of the mightiest military on the planet. In addition, the strike caused more economic damage to the US and world economies then the GDP of Afghanistan for the next 500 years combined. If the strike on the Capitol had been sucessful the very heads of our Government could have been killed en mass. To break this down to hey only 3000 people were killed whats the big deal is either deliberatly ignoring the other huge factors and huge changes in society that occured because of the attacks or you havnt spent enough time thinking about these things.

Oh, I've thought about it. I've had to, because the Bush administration has used the 9/11 attacks to try to justify everything they've done, from illegal wiretapping to union busting. And the huge changes in US society have come about only because we've allowed them to come about. Al Qaeda has no more effect on the way we live our lives than we allow them to have. If you've changed your core values because of the 9/11 attacks, it's because you're a chickenshit coward.

You're so cute when you're in fanboi mode.

And we do need people like you, to sit on the sidelines shaking your pom poms to entertain during the arguments and debates and other grown-up things you wouldn't be interested in.

The next time I need the approval of a master debater such as yourself will be the first, boi.

Er, on second thought, you haven't shown any real ability to debate any issue, just a facility for mudslinging, personal invective and the repetition of PC shibboleths [you do know what those are, right?]. Maybe you should confine yourself to grad school or wherever you've managed to formulate the profound, insightful opinions you so regularly bless this board with.

The next time I need the approval of a master debater such as yourself will be the first, boi.

Er, on second thought, you haven't shown any real ability to debate any issue, just a facility for mudslinging, personal invective and the repetition of PC shibboleths [you do know what those are, right?]. Maybe you should confine yourself to grad school or wherever you've managed to formulate the profound, insightful opinions you so regularly bless this board with.

Heal thyself. :rolleyes:

And the huge changes in US society have come about only because we've allowed them to come about. Al Qaeda has no more effect on the way we live our lives than we allow them to have. If you've changed your core values because of the 9/11 attacks, it's because you're a chickenshit coward.

Id say the changes in US society wernt "allowed" by the people, for the most part they were demanded by the people. Not the phone tap thing but certainly increased security checks at Federal buildings and in shipping containers and Airports and increased budgets in counter intelligence and increased security in mass transit and bridges and even less thought of things such as changes in building codes to make evacuations easier in skyscrapers the list goes on and on and on and on.

Id say the changes in US society wernt "allowed" by the people, for the most part they were demanded by the people. Not the phone tap thing but certainly increased security checks at Federal buildings and in shipping containers and Airports and increased budgets in counter intelligence and increased security in mass transit and bridges and the list goes on and on and on and on.

Increasing border security and security on aircraft and federal buildings doesn't change the core values of Americans. Defending torture, holding US citizens without trial, deporting legal immigrants without trial, warrantless wiretapping, and the many egregious sections of the PATRIOT Act, among others, are changes we have brought upon ourselves, to our detriment.

Funny...and I thought Canadians consumed more energy per capita than anyone else in the world.

a)Irrelavent.
b)Wrong! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

Plenty of people love christianity, but the Old Testament god is full of hatred and intolerance.

Religion isn't possible unless it is saying that their beliefs are better and correct and every one elses are wrong. How can it be any other way?

Isn't the entire point of religion is saying that their beliefs are better and correct and every one elses are wrong?

Actually no. It's a sign of an immature religion. The oldest religions--Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism--all share the belief that there are many viable paths to heaven or Nirvana or whatever you want to call it. It's only the youthful religions that argue for their supremacy over all others.

And yes, yes, there are sects within those older religions that argue for supremacy, but they are minor sects and not the general belief, just as there are Christian sects, like the Unitarians, for instance, who follow the Hindu/Buddhist/Judaism path that all roads lead to God.

Religion isn't possible unless it is saying that their beliefs are better and correct and every one elses are wrong. How can it be any other way?

And in this case it's "Ha Ha Ha Your Religion Blows Up People And Chops Off Their Heads And Ours Don't So We're Better And Correct And You're Wrong Ha Ha Ha"

Actually no. It's a sign of an immature religion. The oldest religions--Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism--all share the belief that there are many viable paths to heaven or Nirvana or whatever you want to call it. It's only the youthful religions that argue for their supremacy over all others.

I'd like to belive that to be true but I'm sure if I look back I'd find that all religions have blood on their hands.

And in this case it's "Ha Ha Ha Your Religion Blows Up People And Chops Off Their Heads And Ours Don't So We're Better And Correct And You're Wrong Ha Ha Ha"

Considering that Christianity has murdered plenty of people in its history it should shut up. I doubt it will though.

I'd like to belive that to be true but I'm sure if I look back I'd find that all religions have blood on their hands.
They do, but what we've been talking about here is religions with hatred and intolerance built into the dogma of the religion. The older religions have gotten past that part of religion. There have been some writers who deal with the subject who argue that the bloodthirsty part of religion is always the early part, and that it eventually cools off--just part of the natural metamorphosis. Problem is, it takes thousands of years for most religions to get past that bloodthirstiness, and lots fo innocents get slaughtered along the way.

They do, but what we've been talking about here is religions with hatred and intolerance built into the dogma of the religion. The older religions have gotten past that part of religion. There have been some writers who deal with the subject who argue that the bloodthirsty part of religion is always the early part, and that it eventually cools off--just part of the natural metamorphosis. Problem is, it takes thousands of years for most religions to get past that bloodthirstiness, and lots fo innocents get slaughtered along the way.

Okay, I'll give Christianity and Islam another thousand years and maybe then I can believe in what they claim to represent.

The next time I need the approval of a master debater such as yourself will be the first, boi.

Oh, you don't need my approval. See, there you go, inventing strawmen. ;)

Er, on second thought, you haven't shown any real ability to debate any issue, just a facility for mudslinging, personal invective and the repetition of PC shibboleths [you do know what those are, right?].

Somehow, I doubt you've exactly read the thousands of posts I've made on this forum and objectively come to the conclusion that I have zero ability to debate any and all issues.

So, your statement is hypocrisy. Particularly in light of how you only 'debate' one issue - Evil Muslims - and you just repeat your nonsense mudslinging and ideology of hatred. And when someone, anyone criticizes you, you whine like a little bitch and rant about "Euro-wimps" or "PC" or "liberals."

I hope you don't think that's actually impressing anyone.

Maybe you should confine yourself to grad school or wherever you've managed to formulate the profound, insightful opinions you so regularly bless this board with.

Maybe I should! Maybe you should confine yourself to Stormfront. They hate Muslims there too and your nationalist, xenophobic policies would be welcome.

(Yes, this is your cue to whine and bitch about how you are always compared to nazis. Poor you. :( )

Okay, I'll give Christianity and Islam another thousand years and maybe then I can believe in what they claim to represent.That's about what it'll take, I imagine. Then we'll be talking about how those Scientologists are bloodying up the joint. :D

That's about what it'll take, I imagine. Then we'll be talking about how those Scientologists are bloodying up the joint. :D

He, he. I was thinking of Mormons but Scientologists will certainly do. :D

Somehow, I doubt you've exactly read the thousands of posts I've made on this forum and objectively come to the conclusion that I have zero ability to debate any and all issues.

Somehow I doubt I have the time, let alone the patience, to wade through thousands of posts by anyone, especially someone with your penchant for, not to put too fine a point on it, lying about the positions of those you "debate." Although I do find your (and others like-minded) selfless defense of the indefensible amusing, along with your use of the same labels over and over again--it reminds me of the definition of insanity.

So, your statement is hypocrisy.

hypocrisy: n. a pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; especially, a pretense of virtue, etc.

Thought you'd be interested in the definition of the word, since you're obviously unfamiliar with it. Although you do make a good pretense of virtue.

Particularly in light of how you only 'debate' one issue - Evil Muslims

From someone who accuses others of not reading the posts he's made on this forum, one would expect at least an attempt to apply the same standard to himself. Oh well, my mistake.

- and you just repeat your nonsense mudslinging and ideology of hatred.

If you consider direct citations of teachings explicitly set forth in the Koran, Hadith and other Islamic sources, and reasoned conclusions based thereon, to be "nonsense mudslinging," then it's all the more evident that your debating ability is questionable at best.

If anyone who's posted on this topic has credibility and speaks with any kind of authority, it's Tropical Sands. [See, e.g., Checklandia's post of 27-06-2006 entitled "Does this seem evil to you?(sick of muslim bashers)", posts 172, 217]. TS doesn't agree with my overall opinion of Islam [same thread, posts 172, 174, etc.], but does agree at least to some extent with numerous of the points I have argued [same thread, posts 174, 178, 179, 181; see also 204, 207, 209, 213, 219, 231, 267], and hardly considers them "nonsense", "hate" or the like.

I respect TS's views on the subject. I may even modify my positions in light of his comments, after further study. Your views, however, carry considerably less weight.

And when someone, anyone criticizes you, you whine like a little bitch and rant about "Euro-wimps" or "PC" or "liberals." Criticize all you like. It's you, and many of those on your side of the issue, who feel compelled to sling mud. Of course, if you consider political correctness and/or liberalism to be "mud" (a thought that does occur), then maybe both sides do it after all.

And as for the "Euro-wimp" title, that must really strike close to home for you and others to "whine like a little bitch and rant" about it so often. If there was ever an apt description of a society that (1) refuses to defend its own culture, let alone advance it, (2) is failing even to reproduce itself, and (3) allows an alien culture to implant itself within its borders and attempt to import its own laws and compel non-believers to be bound by them, it's "Euro-wimp." If the shoe fits, wear it.

I hope you don't think that's actually impressing anyone.

At least as much as your ovine repetition of "nazi," "Stormfront" and "bigotracist" impresses anyone. Have you considered "Four legs good, two legs bad?"

Maybe I should! Maybe you should confine yourself to Stormfront. They hate Muslims there too and your nationalist, xenophobic policies would be welcome.

(Yes, this is your cue to whine and bitch about how you are always compared to nazis. Poor you. :( )

I don't "whine and bitch" about your intellectually dishonest comparison. I simply deny it. Now, go back to your professors or whoever and tell them what a good little soldier you are in the big war against that vast right-wing conspiracy and those evil nationalists and xenophobes. :D

The problem with you and others on your side of the issue is that you can't deal with something that debunks your comfy little world-view where all religions are just as good as any other and people are just people. Fortunately, at least here in the US, that kind of thinking is presently confined to the party that's out of power and likely to remain so.

The problem with you and others on your side of the issue is that you can't deal with something that debunks your comfy little world-view where all religions are just as good as any other and people are just people. Fortunately, at least here in the US, that kind of thinking is presently confined to the party that's out of power and likely to remain so.

So you're saying that there are different classes of people related to what religion they are? That is the implication you are making. Do feel free to call me a liberal, but in my world view people ARE just people. No one is created as an evil person, and equally no one is created as a good person. If you took someone from their (Muslim) American family at the moment of birth and entrusted them to a (Muslim) Iraqi family, then they would grow up with one set of thoughts, opinions and ideals. If you had left them where they were, then they would grow up with an entirely different set. Surroundings define who you are, and it doesn't matter what religion you are brought up to, it depends HOW those around you interpret that religion. If everyone tells you that Jihad is the way, that killing Westerners is the short-cut to heaven, and that you will be eternally blessed for doing so, you're sorta likely to believe that.

Equally if someone tells you that all the world's troubles with terrorism slem from the Middle East, and more specifically from Muslims, then that's what they're likely to believe. So now you have a population told by their leaders that it is Muslims that are causing the most trouble ...

And you wonder why they don't like you?

Somehow I doubt I have the time, let alone the patience, to wade through thousands of posts by anyone,

In which case you are premature about making definitive statements about my inability to debate, having so little evidence.

Although I do find your (and others like-minded) selfless defense of the indefensible amusing, along with your use of the same labels over and over again--it reminds me of the definition of insanity.

The same labels seem to keep fitting. Of course I admit they're not as sieg-heilirific as "liberals" or "PC", which are obviously worth repeating anytime anyone disagrees with you.


From someone who accuses others of not reading the posts he's made on this forum, one would expect at least an attempt to apply the same standard to himself. Oh well, my mistake.

I read your posts, but I admit I have a limited ability to choke down hate-filled propaganda so perhaps I am missing some shining example of how you're not actually as shitty as you otherwise sound.

I doubt it, though.

If you consider direct citations of teachings explicitly set forth in the Koran, Hadith and other Islamic sources, and reasoned conclusions based thereon, to be "nonsense mudslinging," then it's all the more evident that your debating ability is questionable at best.

Your "reasoned conclusions" are anything but. Your practice of interpreting ancient texts to make slanderous generalizations about an entire religion can easily be applied to Christianity, or any other major religion for that matter. In no way is citing religious texts to suit your own agenda an example of "reasoned conslusion" when the "conclusions" are like : All Jews are Evil.

If anyone who's posted on this topic has credibility and speaks with any kind of authority, it's Tropical Sands. [See, e.g., Checklandia's post of 27-06-2006 entitled "Does this seem evil to you?(sick of muslim bashers)", posts 172, 217]. TS doesn't agree with my overall opinion of Islam [same thread, posts 172, 174, etc.], but does agree at least to some extent with numerous of the points I have argued [same thread, posts 174, 178, 179, 181; see also 204, 207, 209, 213, 219, 231, 267], and hardly considers them "nonsense", "hate" or the like.

Appeal to authority. Except Tropical Sands isn't an "authority" I recognize. And because he doesn't agree with your overall opinion of Islam and your overall opinion of Islam is the issue, this example of fastidious citation of your own posts is irrelevant.

Criticize all you like. It's you, and many of those on your side of the issue, who feel compelled to sling mud. Of course, if you consider political correctness and/or liberalism to be "mud" (a thought that does occur), then maybe both sides do it after all.

I don't see liberalism as "mud." I see it as "freedom," a.k.a liberty. However, I don't buy into the corn-fed American notion that Democrats and Socialists are "liberal." Yet another failing of how you rely so heavily on that and similar words to - yes - sling mud at your opponents.

And as for the "Euro-wimp" title, that must really strike close to home for you and others to "whine like a little bitch and rant" about it so often.

Not as much, evidently, as whenever you are called a bigot. Hell, you were whining and bitching about being called a bigot in this thread and no one even MENTIONED you!

If there was ever an apt description of a society that (1) refuses to defend its own culture, let alone advance it, (2) is failing even to reproduce itself, and (3) allows an alien culture to implant itself within its borders and attempt to import its own laws and compel non-believers to be bound by them, it's "Euro-wimp." If the shoe fits, wear it.

Sorry, not my size.

Now, if there was ever a description of a society that 1) makes war to defend its "culture" (i.e, race or religion), or 2) sees a constantly growing population as necessary no matter what, or 3) sees any other 'culture' as "alien" and seeks to oppress the civil liberties of such "cultures," it's - you guessed it - NAZI.

At least as much as your ovine repetition of "nazi," "Stormfront" and "bigotracist" impresses anyone. Have you considered "Four legs good, two legs bad?"

It's not meant to impress anyone. Really, when you post your hate-trash you mostly wind up proving my point. I only pop in to point it out in case others consider you too insignificant and don't bother reading or responding.

Really, you should be thanking me, since otherwise you wouldn't have an excuse to rant as much and you wouldn't be getting the lovely attention you so enjoy.

Now, go back to your professors or whoever and tell them what a good little soldier you are in the big war against that vast right-wing conspiracy and those evil nationalists and xenophobes. :D

I love how you assume I must be "liberal" and "at a liberal college." Because oh no, anyone who criticizes your hate-mongering is part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy!

Your paranoia and hatred are obvious despite your use of emoticons to try to play it off like you're just having fun.


The problem with you and others on your side of the issue is that you can't deal with something that debunks your comfy little world-view where all religions are just as good as any other and people are just people.

Oh ho, and I suppose you can't deal with anything that debunks your comfy little worldview where nations should equal races/religions and there's a bad guy we need to sterilize and exterminate.

Or do you think screaming "liberal" or "libtard" or any of the other lame-ass rhetoric you spew is "dealing with" me? I guess you do.


Fortunately, at least here in the US, that kind of thinking is presently confined to the party that's out of power and likely to remain so.

People like you aren't a majority in any party. White National Socialism isn't exactly the GOP. Sorry to burst your bubble with something called reality, babe.

a)Irrelavent.
b)Wrong! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

that's levels of carbon dioxide emission, not energy consumption. not every form of energy conversion uses gasoline :rolleyes:

Wiki's electricity consumption per capita listing, though, had canada behind only norway and iceland.

It's not hate. It's a matter of self-preservation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/WTC_attack_9-11.jpg

I'm reasonably sure those guys are dead.

ROFL.

how is that?

It could not be more irrelivant.

It could not be more irrelivant.

so basically you said "it's irrellivant," soviestan said "why?" and you replied "because it is"?

i think it IS relivent, since - not even counting the Crusades, etc., there are TONS of examples of people using and twisting orthodox Christain doctrine to make child-molesting cults, death-cults, anti-government pseudo-army whackos, and televangelist! (okay, the last one was for just for fun - but there are "corrupt" televangelists)

so basically you said "it's irrellivant," soviestan said "why?" and you replied "because it is"?

i think it IS relivent, since - not even counting the Crusades, etc., there are TONS of examples of people using and twisting orthodox Christain doctrine to make child-molesting cults, death-cults, anti-government pseudo-army whackos, and televangelist! (okay, the last one was for just for fun - but there are "corrupt" televangelists)

Is this thread about Christians?

No.

And for the record:

The Crusades were more of a political war (using religion as an excuse)
And the rest of the stuff does not even measure up to the situation in the middle east.

It could not be more irrelivant.

Is this thread about Christians?

No.

And for the record:

The Crusades were more of a political war (using religion as an excuse)
And the rest of the stuff does not even measure up to the situation in the middle east.

consider muslim extremists nothing more than a better-organized version of those "God's Army" nuts, then. they've taken it to the next level, whereas the 'Christian' whackos here in the US got nipped in the bud.

we're pointing stuff like this out because they parallel closely. yes, this thread isn't about christians. but pointing out that the same argument could be made about christians due to rather similar circumstances is ment to give one pause about writing off the entirety of Islam as extremist.

we're pointing stuff like this out because they parallel closely.

Hardly.


but pointing out that the same argument could be made about christians due to rather similar circumstances is ment to give one pause about writing off the entirety of Islam as extremist.

No it was pointed out to attack DK, to show that he is apparently a "hypocrite". It did not however change his argument.

The point could be made, yes, but there really is no comparison.

The point could be made, yes, but there really is no comparison.

um... lemme try this again: a number of manipulative individuals take an established doctrine, twist it, citing bits and pieces to further their warped agenda, and convince gullible (usually less-than-intelligent and disadvantaged) 20- to 30-somethings to take up arms for their cause. would you say that's a good description for the majority of those muslim extremists?

well guess what: it also happens time and time again with christian extremists. you say anyone claiming to be christian is like those few extremists, do you? that's what we're saying about islam: not ALL of them are like that (as many people are claiming), just a small minority of them.

please try and explain to me how my comparison is flawed, rather than simply saying "nuh-uh, it's different!"

well guess what: it also happens time and time again with Christian extremists.


Yes but, but about a 10,000th as much as Islam based extremists today.

And if you count the catholic church in the middle ages, that was more of a power hungry country rather then a manipulative terrorist organization so no comparison could be made.

Yes but, but about a 10,000th as much as Islam based extremists today.

And if you count the catholic church in the middle ages, that was more of a power hungry country rather then a manipulative terrorist organization so no comparison could be made.

the ratio doesn't negate my argument, you realize. if it's 1% of a religion that's violently extreme or 10%, it's still not the whole group.

the ratio doesn't negate my argument, you realize. if it's 1% of a religion that's violently extreme or 10%, it's still not the whole group.

Yet, Christian terrorism (if it even still exists outside africa) is not a threat to society anymore. Islamic terrorism is.

Yet, Christian terrorism (if it even still exists outside africa) is not a threat to society anymore. Islamic terrorism is.

good lord - that STILL doesn't negate my point!

sure, there aren't any christain extremist groups threating to hurt us that we know of right now, but there have been in the past, and there will be in the future.

and yes, islamic terrorists are threatinging society (dunno if i'd honestly call them a threat to the whole thing, though), but - GUESS WHAT - they're still not all muslims!

you keep trying to defeat my point with red herrings.
fish don't scare me.

good lord - that STILL doesn't negate my point!


Thats because you keep changing it.


and there will be in the future.

Very unlikely


and yes, islamic terrorists are threatinging society (dunno if i'd honestly call them a threat to the whole thing, though), but - GUESS WHAT - they're still not all muslims!

When did I ever make that claim? In fact i know it is only a minority of Muslims who actually support terrorism.

Thats because you keep changing it.

Very unlikely

When did I ever make that claim? In fact i know it is only a minority of Muslims who actually support terrorism.

1) i wasn't changing my point, i was futher explaining it since you didn't seem to grasp it.
2) if you REALLY believe this, then you're saddly mistaken and nieve
3) i wasn't trying to claim that you were making this point (though i could see how after a page or two that point could be lost). i was making an argument to the people that did claim. you happened in and started debating against me, so i debated back (possibly a "devil's advocate" type situation, if you will).

my point is, and always has been, that not ALL muslims are like the extremists. all posts and pionts made after that were merely factoids, comparisons, and examples to bolster my argument.

2-3 Generations ago the leader of Vahabi's led a rebellion that sacked and burned Mekke and Medine stealing many great islamic treasures and artifacts. The Ottoman Governer of Egypt was ordered to capture him and end rebellion. As a result the leader was brought before Sultan, tortured ritually and questioned of stolen treasures. After Ottoman bureucracy was done with him he was beheaded and etc etc.
Today the King of Suudi Arabia is Grand grand son of that rebel beheaded by Ottoman Empire. That man is a very well known to live a life of extreme luxury(billions of dollars) and serve the Uk and US needs. A side note: Historically Arabs are not ruled by kings, they are ruled by councils of tribal leaders with many socialist principles and the so called Khalif the religional leader is just a puppet figure that was commanded by political power until it was taken by Ottoman Sultan Yavuz Sultan Selim as a political tool. The kingdom was implemented into Arabs by United Kingdom in order to easily control area.
Todays maps of middle east were drawn after WW1 with collapse of Ottoman Empire to keep them from forming strong countries. But in time even if they were artificially engineered to feed inner confilct, they gained a degree of stability and wish for democracy, better lives. Todays wanna be emperors see it and wish to redraw them to feed racial and religious hate and extremism again.
For example Irak, its true that many people were oppressed by dictatorship goverment but many people were alive. Today the country is in state of internal conflict and civil war, with american soldiers getting killed by any side. I dont want to say bad things about any dead soldiers of any country that they fight for their country, but what their country fights for is of course is arguable. A war thats run by corrupt politicians to create anarchy is disgusting in a country that claims its values are democracy and liberty.

Instead of strenghtening unity in the area some world nations just want them seperated, at constant war and weak. But its impossible for ANYONE to stay safe from this fire in todays globalization.
Shortly, there are a group of elites in America and in all other countries working together as a sect, that doesnt care about human life in planet and just want more power for powers sake. We can include extremist christians extremist muslims or anyone of any religion or ethnicity.
As a big country, a big responsibility and blame falls on america, you guys have no right to stay naive, stupid extreme consumers sheltered from worlds problems. There are hungry and angry people everywhere including your backstreets and the poor cant be opressed by force of arms. The terrorists etc. needs to be stopped ok. but turning it into a hate against poor because you fear them is not good, for anyone.
Only solution is secularism, democracy(by the people not dictated democracy from a far point of world), free trade and working for the peoples wellfare with true, honest and noble intentions.
Please correct me where Im wrong.

Your "reasoned conclusions" are anything but. Your practice of interpreting ancient texts to make slanderous generalizations about an entire religion can easily be applied to Christianity, or any other major religion for that matter.

Not unexpectedly, an evasive response: "You can't criticize one religion on the basis of specific teachings found in that religion's scripture because . . . someone could criticize Christianity too!" Much easier to disparage "slanderous generalizations" than to to explain why, in your view, the citations are incorrect or don't mean what they say. Of course, there's always the good old "the vast majority of Muslims don't believe that" (almost invariably presented without a shred of statistical evidence to back it up).

Anyone who wishes to "criticize the teachings of Christianity, or any other major religion for that matter," is free to do so, and the criticisms will stand or fall on their own merits. And since you mention it, "the teachings of Christianity" are in fact frequently the target of criticism, in particular using citations from the Old and New Testaments concerning Christian opposition to homosexuality.

In no way is citing religious texts to suit your own agenda an example of "reasoned conslusion"

A failure to recognize the difference between "reasoned" and "persuasive," or "correct". The fact that you disagree with the conclusion does not make it less "reasoned" than your own conclusions.

when the "conclusions" are like : All Jews are Evil.

More intellectual dishonesty. The implication is that the proposition "Islam is on balance an evil creed" is equivalent to "All Muslims are evil." I have never made the latter statement, am on record as not making that statement, have specifically posted to the contrary (Muslims are good to the extent that they do not accept the evil teachings of Islam, a statement that is applicable to all religions, including my own, and indeed to any belief system), and in any event, the two statements are self-evidently not equivalent.

Your insinuation that my "conclusion" is that all Muslims are evil is therefore false, and you, sir, are a liar.

Appeal to authority. Except Tropical Sands isn't an "authority" I recognize. And because he doesn't agree with your overall opinion of Islam and your overall opinion of Islam is the issue, this example of fastidious citation of your own posts is irrelevant.

The logical fallacy of an appeal to authority has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something positive about A,
therefore claim B is true.

Example: "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so".

The proposition here is not "TS says that Islam is on balance an evil creed, therefore it is so," nor even "TS says that Islam is not on balance an evil creed, therefore it is so." It is "TS is in at least partial agreement with certain arguments concerning an area of his expertise, therefore it is likely to be true that the arguments rise above the level of mere ranting." As such, it is not the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

So, once again, your ignorance of the terms of your own argument is exposed.

As for your rejection of TS' authority on this issue, you are free to do so. The facts underlying his worthiness to be considered an authority, at least for the purposes of this board, remain nevertheless.

I don't see liberalism as "mud." I see it as "freedom," a.k.a liberty. However, I don't buy into the corn-fed American notion that Democrats and Socialists are "liberal." Yet another failing of how you rely so heavily on that and similar words to - yes - sling mud at your opponents.

So it's not "mud," yet it is "mud-slinging"? Nothing else need be said :)

Not as much, evidently, as whenever you are called a bigot. Hell, you were whining and bitching about being called a bigot in this thread and no one even MENTIONED you!

Apparently you're too obtuse to perceive the point of my original post, so let me spell it out: it was to ridicule those who had accused, or planned to accuse, DK of "bigotry" and/or "racism". The post included neither "whining" nor "bitching".

There, is it clear now, or should I use words with fewer syllables?

Now, if there was ever a description of a society that 1) makes war to defend its "culture" (i.e, race or religion), or 2) sees a constantly growing population as necessary no matter what, or 3) sees any other 'culture' as "alien" and seeks to oppress the civil liberties of such "cultures," it's - you guessed it - NAZI.

I'm sure there must be a point here. Oh yes, I see it--I must have been defending Nazism. But once more, I have never done so, do not do so now, and will never do so. So again, sir, your insinuation is a lie.

I love how you assume I must be "liberal" and "at a liberal college." Because oh no, anyone who criticizes your hate-mongering is part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy!

Perhaps I'm being overly restrictive. It's just that your opinions are so characteristic of grad school students, especially those in political science, language arts, history and other soft sciences. Up till now, I had believed that certain opinions are so utterly without merit and so detached from reality that only a grad student could hold them. Perhaps your case is the exception that proves the rule.

Your paranoia and hatred are obvious despite your use of emoticons to try to play it off like you're just having fun.

Play it off like I'm just having fun? You misconstrue. I used emoticons to attempt to convey the level of respect I have for your ad hominem invective. I considered :D to be a bit more refined than :p , not to mention :upyours:

Oh ho, and I suppose you can't deal with anything that debunks your comfy little worldview where nations should equal races/religions and there's a bad guy we need to sterilize and exterminate.

"Nations should equal races/religions"? I have never made any such statement. "[T]here's a bad guy we need to sterilize and exterminate"? Again, I have never made any such statement.

People like you aren't a majority in any party. White National Socialism isn't exactly the GOP.

Another accusation of "National Socialism," another lie.

And with that, it's time to call it. Good day, and may you be out of range of the next terrorist attack :D

I wonder why the Washington Post article leaves out that little tidbit of information.

Beats me. Unless they just exagerrate the bad to cover the indifferent, humdrum and not worthy of mention....you know....you do now, don't be coy....