Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which Side Are You On?: The "Moderate Muslim" Litmus Tests

By Barry Rubin

August 27, 2010

In the controversy over the "Ground Zero" mosque in New York and other issues, Muslims are often asked if they condemn terrorism, Iran, or Hamas and other revolutionary Islamist groups, along with other questions. The idea is to determine whether they are moderates or radicals. Each of these questions also has an unnoticed "internal Muslim" aspect as well that makes them all the more important.

Yet this question is often placed in the context of whether or not they support murderous attacks on non-Muslims or calls to wipe out Israel. This is a valid consideration, but it misses a key point about why Islamic activists should be asked and how they should answer such questions.

There is an important additional factor embedded in this question. One is that these are revolutionary Islamist groups or countries. If you don't condemn them you are in effect accepting their program for a radical transformation of Muslim-majority (and even other) countries, the imposition of a radical interpretation of Sharia law on every aspect of society. If you are a nationalist, or a liberal, or a moderate Islamist the prospect of your enemies seizing state power and perhaps repressing you would be a most upsetting prospect.

In other words, a moderate would condemn these groups and Iran not for the sake of Israel or the West, but for the sake of his own people and anti-Islamist cause. It is impossible to be neutral on this point: Do you want to live (or see most other Muslims live) under a caliphate, a theocratic dictatorship, a repressive regime as exists in Iran or the Taliban's Afghanistan or not?

Would a moderate like to see what should be his worst nightmare triumph, interpret Islam in its own extremist way, and destroy any chance that he might realize his vision? Well, he could if his vision was roughly the same as theirs.

Another question asked--Do you condemn terrorism not only against "innocent Muslims" but also non-Muslims?--has a similar twist. Again, by refusing to reject terrorism against Jews, Christians, and (in Thailand, at least) Buddhists, the political activist is accepting some types of deliberate murder of civilians.

Yet this is not the only issue going on here. An "innocent Muslim" is a regular person, a bystander. But that would not include government officials or employees or those deemed too secular or liberal, people revolutionary Islamists want to kill. Perhaps this category of the non-innocent might include whole Muslim communities (Shias in Iraq, for example; African groups in Sudan). Moreover, failing to condemn all terrorism shows either a misunderstanding (or support) for the anarchy and destruction that this tactic imposes on Muslim-majority societies. In other words, it shows both ruthlessness toward one's own people and indicates that one is on the side of the radical Islamists.

Still another indicator is adherence to the Muslim Brotherhood or its front groups. It is somewhat understandable but ultimately quite foolish to focus only on the threat of currently violent terrorist Islamist groups, notably al-Qaida, to the exclusion of everyone else (even Hizballah or elements of the Taliban, according to some Obama Administration officials.)

The Brotherhood is more dangerous precisely because it takes a long-term, tactically flexible view that is more likely to be effective in both Muslim-majority and Western states. Moreover, for the Brotherhood, violence is merely a matter of timing, wrong to engage in only because the mass base has not yet been prepared and success not assured.

One of the Brotherhood's tactics is dissimulation or to use the plainer word: lying. Its agents speak of dialogue, moderation, and bridge-building to the suckers (I mean interlocutors) while indoctrinating their Muslim audience with anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-Christianism, and antisemitism. Many of them have mastered the rhetoric of human rights and victimhood.

And they have become used to the fact that few in the West will look deeply into their doctrine, what is said in Arabic or other non-Western languages, or political positions. Thus, in most of the Muslim-majority world it is between incredibly difficult and impossible to build or repair any church or synagogue (according to Islamic doctrine they are supposed to ensure that non-Muslim institutions literally collapse).

Does this mean that Western societies should do the same to Muslims? No, but it means that these societies should inquire into their "moderate" friends views on the issue, pressing for them to protest and demand change in the countries their religion controls (they won't) and to cover such matters in schools and media.

A final point of great importance. There are relatively few "moderate Muslims" but there are millions of Muslims who are relatively moderate. The former refers to people whose main identity is as a Muslim and who explicitly want to reform normative Islam. In contrast, the latter are those who are equally Muslim but have their primary identity formed by ethnic (Turkish, Arab, Persian, Kurd, Berber, etc.) or national (Egyptian, Indonesian, Indian, Moroccan) loyalty.

Almost a decade after the September 11 attacks, it is remarkable to see how primitive, censored, and misinformed is the Western debate over Islam and Islamism. Yet this is an issue of the greatest importance in the world today. The fate of the Middle East and the future of the West hangs in the balance.

http://www.gloria-center.org/g.....tmus-tests
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig Smith wrote:
teenagetory wrote:
SmartCon, I have to disagree with your examples. All of these are Old Testament verses, written long before Jesus changed vast portions of the law in forming Christianity.

Jesus said: " But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
óLuke 6:27-31. NIV

Find an equivalent statement from the Qu'ran and I will withdraw my criticism of Islam as a religion. By perpetrating violent acts in the name of Jesus, one is going against his teachings. When does similar things in the name of Muhammad, as far as I can tell they are simply being pious by waging jihad.


Well, that should shut him up. Well done teenagetory. You know your scriptures well. I'm not a very good Christian myself. SmartCon just does quick Google searches and then tries to act smart.


Dealing first with teenagetory's request:

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (Quran, 109:1-6)"

"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (Quran, 5:28)"

Give to the near of kin his due, and also to the needy and the wayfarers. Do not squander your wealth wastefully; for those who squander wastefully are Satan's brothers, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (Quran 17:26-27)

Dealing with the issue as a whole:

These passages in the Quran advocate peace and giving. They even advocate peace with non-Muslims.

There are parts of the Bible that advocate violence. There are parts of the Quran that advocate violence. But each of the passages that advocate violence in these respective religious texts, contradict the main premise of each book: peace.

In my view, any interpretation of either the Bible or the Quran in a way that justifies extremism, goes against each books guiding principle. Extremists, whether they be Muslim terrorists or a member of a Christian group like the Lords Resistance Army, breach the overriding principles of their own religion.

There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
These passages in the Quran advocate peace and giving. They even advocate peace with non-Muslims.


No they don't. The first one simply states that "you have your way and I have mine". And the third one basically just say to take care of the less fortunate which isn't relevant to the discussion. The second one says that murder is bad but is not tied to religion (in other words don't kill fellow Muslims - since elsewhere is says to kill non-believers). Nice try with the Google searches but you simply don't know your stuff.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One might add that those verses are pre-medina:

"While the pre-Medina Koran does not sanction acts of terrorism or mass murder, the post-Mecca Koran and the appended teachings of Mohammed call for jihad against all the enemies of God, calling for Muslims to put terror into the hearts of unbelievers (unbelievers are those who declare that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of Mary). "

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3772/posts
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is there no comment from SmartCon about them graffiti photos?
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.


Well, throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems..... Seriously, Nazis? Nazis were extremists. There were however Germans who did not support the Nazis. There is of course a difference between Germans and Nazis, even during Nazi rule. Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
Craig wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.


Well, throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems..... Seriously, Nazis? Nazis were extremists. There were however Germans who did not support the Nazis. There is of course a difference between Germans and Nazis, even during Nazi rule. Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.


Q: "throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems"

R: Not anymore! Like Craig noted to you already - mainstream Christianity moved past that over two hundred years ago...when will a similar enlightenment come to Islam?

SmartCon why are you avoiding responding to my postings?

Not a word on my postings because - you have no real rebuttal...

Did you understand what I meant when I wrote this:

"For a basis of understanding we can look at it from a historical perspective...at what point during ww2 did the terms "German" and "Nazi" become so synonymous so as to be pretty much indistinguishable and interchangeable one from the other? What were the factors leading to this indistinguishable identity?"

Do you understand that? Of course I'm not comparing Nazis and Muslims or even Nazis and Islamists. Do you understand the point I was making? If you drop the blind biases you will understand...

What are your thoughts on them graffiti photos?
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
Craig wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.


Well, throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems..... Seriously, Nazis? Nazis were extremists. There were however Germans who did not support the Nazis. There is of course a difference between Germans and Nazis, even during Nazi rule. Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.


Q: "throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems"

R: Not anymore! Like Craig noted to you already - mainstream Christianity moved past that over two hundred years ago...when will a similar enlightenment come to Islam?

SmartCon why are you avoiding responding to my postings?

Not a word on my postings because - you have no real rebuttal...

Did you understand what I meant when I wrote this:

"For a basis of understanding we can look at it from a historical perspective...at what point during ww2 did the terms "German" and "Nazi" become so synonymous so as to be pretty much indistinguishable and interchangeable one from the other? What were the factors leading to this indistinguishable identity?"

Do you understand that? Of course I'm not comparing Nazis and Muslims or even Nazis and Islamists. Do you understand the point I was making? If you drop the blind biases you will understand...

What are your thoughts on them graffiti photos?


No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post. However, I think the Nazi-German question was answered in my previous post. The Nazis were a political party in Germany and formed the government. I dont think they were ever indistinguishable. That said, they were the presiding government of a country that we were at war with. It does not mean that all Germans were Nazis. As you know, the Nazis murdered anyone who spoke out against them at the time of their rule, so it would be difficult to actually have some real information on who supported them in Germany and who did not. Several Germans did try to rebel, for example attempts to kill Hitler. That being so, saying all Germans in the war years were Nazis is also incorrect.

The Nazis were extremists comparable to a terrorist organization. In this context, Germans as a whole in the war years would be like Muslims, is I think what your getting at. On your analysis, Muslims as a whole could be no different than extremist Muslims, as during the war years Germans were no different than Nazis. That said, Germany survived Nazi rule and there are still Germans who are now our friends, not enemy. Islam is in a state where it has to overcome its extremists. This cannot be done by declaring a war on Muslims, as unlike the Nazi party they have no truely defined geographic region.

For example, look at the Swiss, they are German but were not Nazi's and stayed out of the war all together. We did not invade the Swiss just because they are German as they were not Nazis. Your average Muslim is not an extremist, similar to the Swiss in WWII and we should not label Muslims as extremists just because a sect of Muslims are doing extreme things.

With regard to the photos of the graffiti, I don't really know its context. All I know from viewing them is its a name painted on a wall that appears to be of Middle Eastern origin. I see "tags" or names spray painted on buildings all accross the city I live it. I don't really think the name spray painted really makes a difference.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
don muntean wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
Craig wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.


Well, throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems..... Seriously, Nazis? Nazis were extremists. There were however Germans who did not support the Nazis. There is of course a difference between Germans and Nazis, even during Nazi rule. Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.


Q: "throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems"

R: Not anymore! Like Craig noted to you already - mainstream Christianity moved past that over two hundred years ago...when will a similar enlightenment come to Islam?

SmartCon why are you avoiding responding to my postings?

Not a word on my postings because - you have no real rebuttal...

Did you understand what I meant when I wrote this:

"For a basis of understanding we can look at it from a historical perspective...at what point during ww2 did the terms "German" and "Nazi" become so synonymous so as to be pretty much indistinguishable and interchangeable one from the other? What were the factors leading to this indistinguishable identity?"

Do you understand that? Of course I'm not comparing Nazis and Muslims or even Nazis and Islamists. Do you understand the point I was making? If you drop the blind biases you will understand...

What are your thoughts on them graffiti photos?


No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post. However, I think the Nazi-German question was answered in my previous post. The Nazis were a political party in Germany and formed the government. I dont think they were ever indistinguishable. That said, they were the presiding government of a country that we were at war with. It does not mean that all Germans were Nazis. As you know, the Nazis murdered anyone who spoke out against them at the time of their rule, so it would be difficult to actually have some real information on who supported them in Germany and who did not. Several Germans did try to rebel, for example attempts to kill Hitler. That being so, saying all Germans in the war years were Nazis is also incorrect.

The Nazis were extremists comparable to a terrorist organization. In this context, Germans as a whole in the war years would be like Muslims, is I think what your getting at. On your analysis, Muslims as a whole could be no different than extremist Muslims, as during the war years Germans were no different than Nazis. That said, Germany survived Nazi rule and there are still Germans who are now our friends, not enemy. Islam is in a state where it has to overcome its extremists. This cannot be done by declaring a war on Muslims, as unlike the Nazi party they have no truely defined geographic region.

For example, look at the Swiss, they are German but were not Nazi's and stayed out of the war all together. We did not invade the Swiss just because they are German as they were not Nazis. Your average Muslim is not an extremist, similar to the Swiss in WWII and we should not label Muslims as extremists just because a sect of Muslims are doing extreme things.

With regard to the photos of the graffiti, I don't really know its context. All I know from viewing them is its a name painted on a wall that appears to be of Middle Eastern origin. I see "tags" or names spray painted on buildings all accross the city I live it. I don't really think the name spray painted really makes a difference.


Well I guess you're not bright enough to understand simple examples or is it that you are just so disinclined to see things in proper context.

The majority of the German population were Nazi supporters and were very supportive of the antisemitic activities of their leaders. If you deny that - then - you deny history.

With respect to the photos - the fact that you DO NOT understated this "name" proves that you do not have sufficient understanding of this topic to have a relevant discussion.

It is well documented that Islamist attacks are almost always preceded by shouting out that phrase. Thus knowing the facts - if you dismiss those photos as just another vandal painting graffiti - then - you really are clued out.

"At approximately 1:34 p.m. local time, Hasan entered his workplace, the Soldier Readiness Center, where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment. According to eyewitnesses, he took a seat at an empty table, bowed his head for several seconds,[8] and then stood up and opened fire. Initially, Hasan reportedly jumped onto a desk and shouted: "Allahu Akbar!",[9][10] before firing more than 100 rounds" (emphases added)

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

That is only one example - want more?

Q:

No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post

R: Why not?
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
don muntean wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
Craig wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.


Well, throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems..... Seriously, Nazis? Nazis were extremists. There were however Germans who did not support the Nazis. There is of course a difference between Germans and Nazis, even during Nazi rule. Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.


Q: "throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems"

R: Not anymore! Like Craig noted to you already - mainstream Christianity moved past that over two hundred years ago...when will a similar enlightenment come to Islam?

SmartCon why are you avoiding responding to my postings?

Not a word on my postings because - you have no real rebuttal...

Did you understand what I meant when I wrote this:

"For a basis of understanding we can look at it from a historical perspective...at what point during ww2 did the terms "German" and "Nazi" become so synonymous so as to be pretty much indistinguishable and interchangeable one from the other? What were the factors leading to this indistinguishable identity?"

Do you understand that? Of course I'm not comparing Nazis and Muslims or even Nazis and Islamists. Do you understand the point I was making? If you drop the blind biases you will understand...

What are your thoughts on them graffiti photos?


No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post. However, I think the Nazi-German question was answered in my previous post. The Nazis were a political party in Germany and formed the government. I dont think they were ever indistinguishable. That said, they were the presiding government of a country that we were at war with. It does not mean that all Germans were Nazis. As you know, the Nazis murdered anyone who spoke out against them at the time of their rule, so it would be difficult to actually have some real information on who supported them in Germany and who did not. Several Germans did try to rebel, for example attempts to kill Hitler. That being so, saying all Germans in the war years were Nazis is also incorrect.

The Nazis were extremists comparable to a terrorist organization. In this context, Germans as a whole in the war years would be like Muslims, is I think what your getting at. On your analysis, Muslims as a whole could be no different than extremist Muslims, as during the war years Germans were no different than Nazis. That said, Germany survived Nazi rule and there are still Germans who are now our friends, not enemy. Islam is in a state where it has to overcome its extremists. This cannot be done by declaring a war on Muslims, as unlike the Nazi party they have no truely defined geographic region.

For example, look at the Swiss, they are German but were not Nazi's and stayed out of the war all together. We did not invade the Swiss just because they are German as they were not Nazis. Your average Muslim is not an extremist, similar to the Swiss in WWII and we should not label Muslims as extremists just because a sect of Muslims are doing extreme things.

With regard to the photos of the graffiti, I don't really know its context. All I know from viewing them is its a name painted on a wall that appears to be of Middle Eastern origin. I see "tags" or names spray painted on buildings all accross the city I live it. I don't really think the name spray painted really makes a difference.


Well I guess you're not bright enough to understand simple examples or is it that you are just so disinclined to see things in proper context.

The majority of the German population were Nazi supporters and were very supportive of the antisemitic activities of their leaders. If you deny that - then - you deny history.

With respect to the photos - the fact that you DO NOT understated this "name" proves that you do not have sufficient understanding of this topic to have a relevant discussion.

It is well documented that Islamist attacks are almost always preceded by shouting out that phrase. Thus knowing the facts - if you dismiss those photos as just another vandal painting graffiti - then - you really are clued out.

"At approximately 1:34 p.m. local time, Hasan entered his workplace, the Soldier Readiness Center, where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment. According to eyewitnesses, he took a seat at an empty table, bowed his head for several seconds,[8] and then stood up and opened fire. Initially, Hasan reportedly jumped onto a desk and shouted: "Allahu Akbar!",[9][10] before firing more than 100 rounds" (emphases added)

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

That is only one example - want more?

Q:

No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post

R: Why not?


I did understand your example. I explained that there is a difference between Germans and Nazis in WWII.

No, I did not know what "Allahu Akbar" meant, but looked it up after your post. It means "God is great". We don't know the context of the spray painting, could mean anything.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
don muntean wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
don muntean wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
Craig wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
There are many Muslims that follow the peaceful teachings of Islam and I do not see how you can responsibly group them in with the likes of Terrorists and brand the whole religion as "evil". However, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you obviously all have yours, I just simply disagree with you.


There were many nice Nazis too. They still managed to cause lots of problems.


Well, throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems..... Seriously, Nazis? Nazis were extremists. There were however Germans who did not support the Nazis. There is of course a difference between Germans and Nazis, even during Nazi rule. Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.


Q: "throughout history there have been many nice Christians. They still managed to cause lots of problems"

R: Not anymore! Like Craig noted to you already - mainstream Christianity moved past that over two hundred years ago...when will a similar enlightenment come to Islam?

SmartCon why are you avoiding responding to my postings?

Not a word on my postings because - you have no real rebuttal...

Did you understand what I meant when I wrote this:

"For a basis of understanding we can look at it from a historical perspective...at what point during ww2 did the terms "German" and "Nazi" become so synonymous so as to be pretty much indistinguishable and interchangeable one from the other? What were the factors leading to this indistinguishable identity?"

Do you understand that? Of course I'm not comparing Nazis and Muslims or even Nazis and Islamists. Do you understand the point I was making? If you drop the blind biases you will understand...

What are your thoughts on them graffiti photos?


No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post. However, I think the Nazi-German question was answered in my previous post. The Nazis were a political party in Germany and formed the government. I dont think they were ever indistinguishable. That said, they were the presiding government of a country that we were at war with. It does not mean that all Germans were Nazis. As you know, the Nazis murdered anyone who spoke out against them at the time of their rule, so it would be difficult to actually have some real information on who supported them in Germany and who did not. Several Germans did try to rebel, for example attempts to kill Hitler. That being so, saying all Germans in the war years were Nazis is also incorrect.

The Nazis were extremists comparable to a terrorist organization. In this context, Germans as a whole in the war years would be like Muslims, is I think what your getting at. On your analysis, Muslims as a whole could be no different than extremist Muslims, as during the war years Germans were no different than Nazis. That said, Germany survived Nazi rule and there are still Germans who are now our friends, not enemy. Islam is in a state where it has to overcome its extremists. This cannot be done by declaring a war on Muslims, as unlike the Nazi party they have no truely defined geographic region.

For example, look at the Swiss, they are German but were not Nazi's and stayed out of the war all together. We did not invade the Swiss just because they are German as they were not Nazis. Your average Muslim is not an extremist, similar to the Swiss in WWII and we should not label Muslims as extremists just because a sect of Muslims are doing extreme things.

With regard to the photos of the graffiti, I don't really know its context. All I know from viewing them is its a name painted on a wall that appears to be of Middle Eastern origin. I see "tags" or names spray painted on buildings all accross the city I live it. I don't really think the name spray painted really makes a difference.


Well I guess you're not bright enough to understand simple examples or is it that you are just so disinclined to see things in proper context.

The majority of the German population were Nazi supporters and were very supportive of the antisemitic activities of their leaders. If you deny that - then - you deny history.

With respect to the photos - the fact that you DO NOT understated this "name" proves that you do not have sufficient understanding of this topic to have a relevant discussion.

It is well documented that Islamist attacks are almost always preceded by shouting out that phrase. Thus knowing the facts - if you dismiss those photos as just another vandal painting graffiti - then - you really are clued out.

"At approximately 1:34 p.m. local time, Hasan entered his workplace, the Soldier Readiness Center, where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment. According to eyewitnesses, he took a seat at an empty table, bowed his head for several seconds,[8] and then stood up and opened fire. Initially, Hasan reportedly jumped onto a desk and shouted: "Allahu Akbar!",[9][10] before firing more than 100 rounds" (emphases added)

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

That is only one example - want more?

Q:

No offense Don, but I really didn't look at your post

R: Why not?


I did understand your example. I explained that there is a difference between Germans and Nazis in WWII.

No, I did not know what "Allahu Akbar" meant, but looked it up after your post. It means "God is great". We don't know the context of the spray painting, could mean anything.


Once enough of the German people were in support of the Nazi persecutions - then - it became essentially one and the same German = Nazi. If you cannot understand this simple example then you cannot understand anything.

As for them photos - your attempt to over simplify the issue - to explain away things - is ineffectual. In the west broadcasting that phrase has a specific intent.

You didn't know what the phrase meant? That is basic information - the background of that phrase in Islamist circles. You don't know allot of things....

You think we are attacking Muslims in these postings with a goal to making people look down on them - that is your first error. Nothing could be further from the truth!!

In any case you are unable to see past your biases to understand any of this. This website has lots of facts - check out my discussion topic in world politics called "Iranian president..." - the most viewed discussion topic on this website - there is a great deal of facts collected there.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
Once enough of the German people were in support of the Nazi persecutions - then - it became essentially one and the same German = Nazi. If you cannot understand this simple example then you cannot understand anything.


Oh I understand your example. You're saying that once enough people in a nation support a extreme cause, its justifiable to declare all the people in that nation an enemy. This would of course include woman, children, mentally challenged .etc and you feel bombing the shit out of them is justified. Funny enough, those invovled with the Allies in WWII really don't agree with you. These people range from Statemen to the soldiers on the ground. In a war situation there are unessessary casualties. These would include non-Nazi Germans stuck in a terrible time.

Unlike you, I recocognize that conflicts of this nature are not black and white. There is no simple "us" and "them". Further, if you think it is now nessassary to lump all Muslims in with extremists, in the same vein as you feel was done with Nazis and Germans in WWII,
you have little value for individual rights and freedom of thought.

don muntean wrote:
As for them photos - your attempt to over simplify the issue - to explain away things - is ineffectual. In the west broadcasting that phrase has a specific intent.

You didn't know what the phrase meant? That is basic information - the background of that phrase in Islamist circles. You don't know allot of things....

You think we are attacking Muslims in these postings with a goal to making people look down on them - that is your first error. Nothing could be further from the truth!!

In any case you are unable to see past your biases to understand any of this. This website has lots of facts - check out my discussion topic in world politics called "Iranian president..." - the most viewed discussion topic on this website - there is a great deal of facts collected there.


No, I did not know what the phrase meant, but it is common knowledge extremists yell such things as God is Great or Praise Allah in their native tounge when conducting attacks. The fact of the matter is however, Muslims say the same phrases in basic prair. You are concluding that the phrase now only applies to terrorist attacks. This is incorrect.

Lastly, I don't think you understand a lot of things. But seeing as you are also convinced that the government has put a implant in your body to track you, I am not surprised.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
Just as there is a difference between those who follow Islam and those who use Islam to justify terrorism today.


State sponsored stonings and beheadings of women who commit adultery in the name of Islam. How does this happen if it is only extremists misinterpreting the Koran?!? Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Just look at the treatment of gays, women and minorities. Islam is the problem.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
don muntean wrote:
Once enough of the German people were in support of the Nazi persecutions - then - it became essentially one and the same German = Nazi. If you cannot understand this simple example then you cannot understand anything.


Oh I understand your example. You're saying that once enough people in a nation support a extreme cause, its justifiable to declare all the people in that nation an enemy. This would of course include woman, children, mentally challenged .etc and you feel bombing the shit out of them is justified. Funny enough, those invovled with the Allies in WWII really don't agree with you. These people range from Statemen to the soldiers on the ground. In a war situation there are unessessary casualties. These would include non-Nazi Germans stuck in a terrible time.

Unlike you, I recocognize that conflicts of this nature are not black and white. There is no simple "us" and "them". Further, if you think it is now nessassary to lump all Muslims in with extremists, in the same vein as you feel was done with Nazis and Germans in WWII,
you have little value for individual rights and freedom of thought.

don muntean wrote:
As for them photos - your attempt to over simplify the issue - to explain away things - is ineffectual. In the west broadcasting that phrase has a specific intent.

You didn't know what the phrase meant? That is basic information - the background of that phrase in Islamist circles. You don't know allot of things....

You think we are attacking Muslims in these postings with a goal to making people look down on them - that is your first error. Nothing could be further from the truth!!

In any case you are unable to see past your biases to understand any of this. This website has lots of facts - check out my discussion topic in world politics called "Iranian president..." - the most viewed discussion topic on this website - there is a great deal of facts collected there.


No, I did not know what the phrase meant, but it is common knowledge extremists yell such things as God is Great or Praise Allah in their native tounge when conducting attacks. The fact of the matter is however, Muslims say the same phrases in basic prair. You are concluding that the phrase now only applies to terrorist attacks. This is incorrect.

Lastly, I don't think you understand a lot of things. But seeing as you are also convinced that the government has put a implant in your body to track you, I am not surprised.


There is a rhyme to this...:lol:

'Round and round we go...just when SmartCon will understand...no one can know...'

Well my friend - you're again completely wrong here.

Why don't you understand basic examples - which are clear enough for an elementary school student?

If you think I'm lumping all Muslims into the same category - that again shows your overly simplistic approach to this complex issue. It shows that you're not reading correctly or you've a motivated lack of understanding. Whichever it is?

You say "conflicts of this nature are not black and white" - well who said it was? If it were only so easy!

Incidentally - do 'you' have a way of knowing which Muslims [in the West] support Islamist ideology and which do not? If we do not see more efforts from within the Muslim community to remove from their midst those who support Islamist Ideology then what can be said?

I do not hate Muslims as you imply. I only wish to avoid any associations with those who hold Islamist views. I wish to see them isolated at all levels. Of course you have a less than rudimentary knowledge of what that ideology is...

There is a way one can see if there are potential problems and that is to ask questions about their individual opinions on Jews and the state of Israel. Is that not so?

I might even be wondering about what your real opinions are in that connection...admittedly - i would expect more skewed discussions on that point.

In any case your last comment here says it all:

"Lastly, I don't think you understand a lot of things. But seeing as you are also convinced that the government has put a implant in your body to track you, I am not surprised"

Clearly - you're failing in this discussion and - you're resorting to taking cheap shots like that! The motivation? A lame hope of biasing those readers who will be reading my postings and seeing the clear points I'm making!

I'm used to such SmartAss remarks from the chronically misinformed...:lol:

With such blinders on - you have no real regard for the environment within which you live in today's world. :roll:

I will not 'defend' my protest - as it needs no defense.

Of course you would refuse to consider many points surrounding the incident such as - if it were not true the 'dentist' would have long ago obtained a court order to shut down my protest website etc., but...despite the attempts to do so - the 'dentist' has failed...

At least we continue to have a fair judiciary in Saskatchewan!

In any event - I could care less if you continue with your blinders on...

SmartCon I'm certain that since I actually understand what individual rights [and freedom of thought] really are and just how precariously positioned they are in life - even right here in Canada - I value them more than you do!

At least I will be able to "value" my individual rights... when I get them back.

Oh and do you have a spell checker in your browser? Or is your spelling as unimportant as your depth of facts? :wink: :lol:


Last edited by don muntean on Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Burning Korans - Your Thoughts?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB