The religion of peace.

[3rdnlng]

So what? You want things spoon fed to you now? So much for being a self made man. I thought you weren't a liberal?

 

The Klan was formed and comprised of largely southern baptists. They consider themselves to be Christian soldiers. The reason they burned crosses isn't just because it looks scary... again, educate yourself. The Klan was formed in religious fires and their beliefs are taken from Christianity and have been perverted to suit their racial agenda.

 

Racism couched in religious fanaticism. Sound familiar?

 

Again, the point in bringing up the Klan is to show how silly your beliefs are. Saying radical muslims somehow speak for 1.6 billion people is as silly as me saying the Klan speaks for the over 1 billion Christians. Trying to argue me on this makes you look foolish.

 

 

Dumbest post of the year.

 

 

So wait, now we should listen to what the mainstream media tells us? I mean, gosh, that kind of goes against everything you've been spouting for months.

 

 

Truth.

 

 

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

[CosmicBills]

Is that a joke answer ?

 

The obvious point of my reference was that MD killers are few and (thankfully ) far between, while muslim fanatic murders are almost daily.

 

How you come up with your response is questionable.... (to be kind)

 

 

.

Got it. Mainstream media is good when they work within your (weak) argument. Bad when they work against it.

 

Thumbs up.

 

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

No doubt.

[B-Man]

Got it. Mainstream media is good when they work within your (weak) argument. Bad when they work against it.

 

Thumbs up.

 

 

No doubt.

 

Now I know you being silly.

 

Mainstream media doesn't enter into the equation, no matter what side your on.

 

The reference was to the frequent occurrence of muslim murders, as opposed to Christians.

 

I know that you're not this dense.

 

 

 

 

.

[chicot]

You don't comprehend what you read very well do you? You have no clue what I was trying to accomplish with NJ. As long as you can interject yourself into a conversation, somehow misinterp what is being stated and proclaim yourself superior, you are complete. You do have some talent. Why don't you use that in a positive way rather than just sitting up there in your balcony taking cheap shots at those of us you feel are inferior.

 

A comment I saw in the comments section in an article:

 

 

It appears to be a religion ..."

This is the problem. Islam is not just a "religion", and too many people make a grave error in considering it so.

It is an all-encompassing system that includes ALL aspects of a society and culture: religion, government, judiciary, education, military, economics, etc. And it is completely intolerant of others, seeking total domination over all others.

This is why it is completely incompatible with the West, democracy, capitalism, Judeo-Christianity, and other religions.

There really is no room for co-existence, and it is why we will remain in conflict with the Muslim world until one side or the other wins.

It really is as simple as "US" or "THEM".

Posted by: fdcol63 | September 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

 

Well, this is a first. Normally, when people quote someone else to support their argument it's someone who you would expect to have some level of expertise in the subject. This is the first time I've seen some random dude in a comments section referenced. Ok, let's suppose for a minute that John Doe's thesis on all things Islamic is correct - what do you suggest we do about it? Kill all muslims? Subjugate them and demand that they renounce their faith at gunpoint?

[Justice]

This is directed at those that say I'm "incapable" of having a debate on this subject. I just love how you guys make blanket statements like that without actually backing it up.

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

This is directed at those that say I'm "incapable" of having a debate on this subject. I just love how you guys make blanket statements like that without actually backing it up.

 

 

I thought we were having a debate until people started jumping in and taking shots from the balcony's gutter.

[3rdnlng]

Well, this is a first. Normally, when people quote someone else to support their argument it's someone who you would expect to have some level of expertise in the subject. This is the first time I've seen some random dude in a comments section referenced. Ok, let's suppose for a minute that John Doe's thesis on all things Islamic is correct - what do you suggest we do about it? Kill all muslims? Subjugate them and demand that they renounce their faith at gunpoint?

 

So, if I quoted one of your comments it would have have more validity? I quoted "Random Dude" because he seemed to make sense and put my beliefs into words better than I had done.

 

What do we do about it? We put ourself in a situation where we don't need one damn thing from them. We leave them to their own devices and let them settle their own disputes. We draw the line at letting them have nuclear weapons and make it very clear that they themselves will be glowing in the dark if they if they violate this condition. Look at it this way---we are just a very large Israel. By and large the middle eastern states want our destruction just like they want Israel's destruction. We don't need to make it easier on them by placing troops over there. We let every state know that if they harbor terrorists, the punishment will not fit the crime. It will be much worse on them and their citizens.

[Jauronimo]

I'm no ones body guard you wet stain. I'm laughing because you actually think you got the better of someone else with that asinine post.

 

 

Please spare me the smack down

You'd better tread lightly. I'm still in pain from when NJ "destroyed" me during the previous "Religion of Peace" thread. And speaking of boyfriends/body guards, where's Romeo?

[GG]

uslims

Well, this is a first. Normally, when people quote someone else to support their argument it's someone who you would expect to have some level of expertise in the subject. This is the first time I've seen some random dude in a comments section referenced. Ok, let's suppose for a minute that John Doe's thesis on all things Islamic is correct - what do you suggest we do about it? Kill all muslims? Subjugate them and demand that they renounce their faith at gunpoint?

 

No one sane is suggesting that Muslims renounce their religion. But on the other hand, when will Westernized Muslims get tired of polite society's treatment of their religion akin to a retarded uncle? Why are smart, educated people ok with the double standard that forgives much of Muslim societies' backward ways in the 21st century? Why is the inevitable comparison of current Muslim fundamentalist atrocities have to go back to days of Charlemagne for Christianity?

 

The solution will not be an external one. We are waiting for the arrival of Muslim Enlightenment, where this silent majority that you, NJ and others allege exists, to finally come out and say, "This is bullcrap. These idiots do not represent us, nor our values."

[CosmicBills]

uslims

 

 

No one sane is suggesting that Muslims renounce their religion. But on the other hand, when will Westernized Muslims get tired of polite society's treatment of their religion akin to a retarded uncle? Why are smart, educated people ok with the double standard that forgives much of Muslim societies' backward ways in the 21st century? Why is the inevitable comparison of current Muslim fundamentalist atrocities have to go back to days of Charlemagne for Christianity?

 

The solution will not be an external one. We are waiting for the arrival of Muslim Enlightenment, where this silent majority that you, NJ and others allege exists, to finally come out and say, "This is bullcrap. These idiots do not represent us, nor our values."

You're attempting to apply secular logic to a fundamental religious dilemma. It just doesn't work that way. You're talking about a part of the globe that is 3 generations removed from tribalism and colonialism -- they have slightly different definitions of what's backwards than you do. You have a worn torn, impoverished population with little access to secular education so of course it's going to turn into a breeding ground for unrest. It's dressed up with religious pretexts and makes it easy for our society to identify as being the enemy.

 

But it doesn't make it true.

 

Islam is not the enemy. And acting like it is only stirs the pot more. If you want to find solutions you have to look at the real problem, not shadows.

[3rdnlng]

 

You're attempting to apply secular logic to a fundamental religious dilemma. It just doesn't work that way. You're talking about a part of the globe that is 3 generations removed from tribalism and colonialism -- they have slightly different definitions of what's backwards than you do. You have a worn torn, impoverished population with little access to secular education so of course it's going to turn into a breeding ground for unrest. It's dressed up with religious pretexts and makes it easy for our society to identify as being the enemy.

 

But it doesn't make it true.

 

Islam is not the enemy. And acting like it is only stirs the pot more. If you want to find solutions you have to look at the real problem, not shadows.

 

I guess some of us have a problem with this and get the feeling that if Islam is not our enemy maybe we are alot of Muslims enemy:

 

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-most-adorable-muslim-beheading-sign-you-will-ever-see/

 

 

"NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione says he was outraged to see children holding signs that called for the beheading of anti-Islamists at a Sydney protest. “It was an outrage,” he told reporters in Sydney today. “To see a young child with a placard thrust in his hand calling for the beheading of a person is simply something I cannot comprehend. It’s just not what we teach our children.”

 

 

[Jim in Anchorage]

You're attempting to apply secular logic to a fundamental religious dilemma. It just doesn't work that way. You're talking about a part of the globe that is 3 generations removed from tribalism and colonialism -- they have slightly different definitions of what's backwards than you do. You have a worn torn, impoverished population with little access to secular education so of course it's going to turn into a breeding ground for unrest. It's dressed up with religious pretexts and makes it easy for our society to identify as being the enemy.

 

But it doesn't make it true.

 

Islam is not the enemy. And acting like it is only stirs the pot more. If you want to find solutions you have to look at the real problem, not shadows.

Please wise one what should we do? Would 200,300,400,$1000 barrels of oil cure their hopeless poverty? And their hate of of America? More Foreign aid perhaps?

[GG]

 

You're attempting to apply secular logic to a fundamental religious dilemma. It just doesn't work that way. You're talking about a part of the globe that is 3 generations removed from tribalism and colonialism -- they have slightly different definitions of what's backwards than you do. You have a worn torn, impoverished population with little access to secular education so of course it's going to turn into a breeding ground for unrest. It's dressed up with religious pretexts and makes it easy for our society to identify as being the enemy.

 

But it doesn't make it true.

 

Islam is not the enemy. And acting like it is only stirs the pot more. If you want to find solutions you have to look at the real problem, not shadows.

 

I appreciate you proving my point.

 

I'm sure that Muslims also appreciate that you lump them all into the "they're still cavemen " camp.

 

Note that I specifically referred to Westernized Muslims, who ostensibly have opportunities for education and greater access to a secular life, for whom old-fashioned tribalism would be an anathema. But we still hear crickets from that silent western Muslim majority and no shortage of funding of extremist fundamentalists.

 

Never mind that a particularly violent strain of extremists has been nurtured in very secular European societies. Hard to blame the Afghan caves for Mohammed Atta.

 

As for generations removed from colonialism and tribalism, lets not forget that India suffered the same British fate, yet why is Pakistan a bigger mess? East Asia was far more backwards than Mid East 50 years ago. Care to compare the two regions now?

 

As these trends continue, subSaharan Africa had a chance to lap Mid East in development in a generation. What will that excuse for Muslims be?

Edited September 19, 2012 by GG

[CosmicBills]

I appreciate you proving my point.

 

I'm sure that Muslims also appreciate that you lump them all into the "they're still cavemen " camp.

 

Note that I specifically referred to Westernized Muslims, who ostensibly have opportunities for education and greater access to a secular life, for whom old-fashioned tribalism would be an anathema. But we still hear crickets from that silent western Muslim majority and no shortage of funding of extremist fundamentalists.

 

Never mind that a particularly violent strain of extremists has been nurtured in very secular European societies. Hard to blame the Afghan caves for Mohammed Atta.

 

As for generations removed from colonialism and tribalism, lets not forget that India suffered the same British fate, yet why is Pakistan a bigger mess? East Asia was far more backwards than Mid East 50 years ago. Care to compare the two regions now?

 

As these trends continue, subSaharan Africa had a chance to lap Mid East in development in a generation. What will that excuse for Muslims be?

You're running from the discussion or I am, so let's clarify.

 

"Westernized Muslims" ... Are you saying there are no Muslims who have protested the violence? Which westernized Muslims are you referring to? Is there a nation state you have in mind? Or are you just speaking in vague generalities to prove your point (which, I still don't know what it is).

 

Are you saying the Islam, as a religion, is inherently violent and flawed? Is that the stance you're taking?

[3rdnlng]

 

You're running from the discussion or I am, so let's clarify.

 

"Westernized Muslims" ... Are you saying there are no Muslims who have protested the violence? Which westernized Muslims are you referring to? Is there a nation state you have in mind? Or are you just speaking in vague generalities to prove your point (which, I still don't know what it is).

 

Are you saying the Islam, as a religion, is inherently violent and flawed? Is that the stance you're taking?

 

It seems to me that countries that are founded on Islamic principles and do not have a secular government generally don't do very well. (oil rich kingdoms excepted---for now at least)Is it because of Islam or is it because religion and government don't mix very well?

[GG]

You're running from the discussion or I am, so let's clarify.

 

"Westernized Muslims" ... Are you saying there are no Muslims who have protested the violence? Which westernized Muslims are you referring to? Is there a nation state you have in mind? Or are you just speaking in vague generalities to prove your point (which, I still don't know what it is).

 

Are you saying the Islam, as a religion, is inherently violent and flawed? Is that the stance you're taking?

 

I'm not running from anything. But obviously a simple message is not getting through to you, because you insist on framing criticism of Islam and its current state on a blanket slate of "Islam is inherently violent and flawed."

 

It is not any more inherently violent and flawed than any other religion whose dogma has been captured by a ruling caste that seeks to use the religion to capture economic or geographic spoils. That's why it's valid to compare current Islam to the low periods of Papal conquests in the name of God, until fellow Christians revolted. And that's what's missing in Islam today. There is no internal revolt to the perversion of the religion that's been brought by the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists & Wahabists.

 

You don't see the inherent contradiction that you rush to excuse the recent cave dwellers for their actions, because ostensibly they don't know any better, yet ignore history that shows Muslims cohabitating with Christians & Jews as recent as the 19th century. Then something changed during the collapse of the British Empire, and that something was Muslim nationalism, which should be seen in its proper light as a political movement disguised as religious fundamentalism, which in turn is religious fanaticism.

 

The fact that the base camp for the extremism happens to congregate in many backwards countries, provides a groundswell of popular support among those tribesmen, does not excuse Muslims who have emigrated to Western societies (definition should be very easy to understand, you are not conner) to embrace the fanatics. Note that I said, "where is this silent Muslim majority?" Are there Muslims who protested the violence? Probably. There are certainly a handful who've publicly denounced the violence, at their own peril. But that's not what is needed. If there truly is a silent majority, then that majority must be heard. And, not with a candle light vigil, but with stern condemnation within their own communities. We don't need to see protests by Christians to know that probably all Christians think that Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of wackjobs that need to disappear. We don't need a Jewish parade to understand that Jewish Defense League is a bunch of terrorists. Where's the equivalent outlook from the fellow Muslims who live in the Western world? Why does France go on high alert because of another cartoon? And please don't hide behind the blasphemous images of Mohammed as the reason, because you are not even allowed to pronounce G-d's name according to the Old Testament,, yet you don't see Hassidim gunning down Jehova's Witnesses on their Saturday walks. Why are Americans instructed to lay low in Australia?

 

We are not talking about uneducated goat herders in Afghanistan here. Islamists revel in the victimization mentality, because it plays to their audience. What I don't understand is the knee jerk liberalism that perpetuates the double standards and reinforces the victimization.

[DC Tom]

It seems to me that countries that are founded on Islamic principles and do not have a secular government generally don't do very well. (oil rich kingdoms excepted---for now at least)Is it because of Islam or is it because religion and government don't mix very well?

 

Or is it because of the legacy of colonialism?

 

Because sub-Saharan African countries with little or no Muslim populations do just as poorly...

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Or is it because of the legacy of colonialism?

 

Because sub-Saharan African countries with little or no Muslim populations do just as poorly...

 

Well, I know thirteen colonies plus a few other countries (former colonies) who have done pretty well.

[DC Tom]

Well, I know thirteen colonies plus a few other countries (former colonies) who have done pretty well.

 

Seriously? You can't see the difference between Brazil and the DRC, or Australia and Egypt, or Quebec and Algeria, and need it spoon-fed to you?

[CosmicBills]

I'm not running from anything. But obviously a simple message is not getting through to you, because you insist on framing criticism of Islam and its current state on a blanket slate of "Islam is inherently violent and flawed."

 

It is not any more inherently violent and flawed than any other religion whose dogma has been captured by a ruling caste that seeks to use the religion to capture economic or geographic spoils. That's why it's valid to compare current Islam to the low periods of Papal conquests in the name of God, until fellow Christians revolted. And that's what's missing in Islam today. There is no internal revolt to the perversion of the religion that's been brought by the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists & Wahabists.

 

You don't see the inherent contradiction that you rush to excuse the recent cave dwellers for their actions, because ostensibly they don't know any better, yet ignore history that shows Muslims cohabitating with Christians & Jews as recent as the 19th century. Then something changed during the collapse of the British Empire, and that something was Muslim nationalism, which should be seen in its proper light as a political movement disguised as religious fundamentalism, which in turn is religious fanaticism.

 

The fact that the base camp for the extremism happens to congregate in many backwards countries, provides a groundswell of popular support among those tribesmen, does not excuse Muslims who have emigrated to Western societies (definition should be very easy to understand, you are not conner) to embrace the fanatics. Note that I said, "where is this silent Muslim majority?" Are there Muslims who protested the violence? Probably. There are certainly a handful who've publicly denounced the violence, at their own peril. But that's not what is needed. If there truly is a silent majority, then that majority must be heard. And, not with a candle light vigil, but with stern condemnation within their own communities. We don't need to see protests by Christians to know that probably all Christians think that Westboro Baptist Church is a bunch of wackjobs that need to disappear. We don't need a Jewish parade to understand that Jewish Defense League is a bunch of terrorists. Where's the equivalent outlook from the fellow Muslims who live in the Western world? Why does France go on high alert because of another cartoon? And please don't hide behind the blasphemous images of Mohammed as the reason, because you are not even allowed to pronounce G-d's name according to the Old Testament,, yet you don't see Hassidim gunning down Jehova's Witnesses on their Saturday walks. Why are Americans instructed to lay low in Australia?

 

We are not talking about uneducated goat herders in Afghanistan here. Islamists revel in the victimization mentality, because it plays to their audience. What I don't understand is the knee jerk liberalism that perpetuates the double standards and reinforces the victimization.

Excellent post. Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned reply.

 

What I'm failing to see though, and it might be here I'm just missing it, is what your proposed solution is? You ask for the Westernized Muslims to speak out (and I argue they have, quite loudly) -- but what would you have them do? Most of the Westernized Muslims no longer live in the Middle East or Asia. They can't do much more but speak out.

 

The ones who you need to reach to enact real change are the ones living under the thumb of these fundamentalist regimes. The same folks that Western governments have done a masterful job of completely fu*king over when sh*t hits the fan (see: Desert Storm and the Kurds/Shi'ites, Afghanistan and the Mujahideen in the 80s and 90s). The educated in these nations have a long history to look back on demonstrating exactly how much the West cares about their plight. And it's only gotten worse post 9/11. When half of the world is calling for the extermination of your religion, how do you identify your friend from your enemy? Look through this thread at some of the gems casually tossed out on here from some folks (nuke 'em all, wipe them all out etc, etc) and tell me where the outraged silent majority is supposed to turn? What you're suggesting is that these people who are living under the thumb of fundamentalist regimes should speak up ... but when they do, the West doesn't listen.

 

My only dog in this fight is the notion that the answer is an extermination or a full on war against Islam. In reality Western civilization has been engaged in a direct and indirect war against Islam for over 900 years. Tom's post above about the legacy of colonialism speaks more to my point -- the enemy isn't a religion, it's a legacy. A legacy of invasion, forced conversion and contempt for a sector of the world who the west deemed as savage. Thinking Islam is the enemy is what got us into this mess as a civilization. It's not going to provide the solution -- otherwise it would have already. Instead, all it does is reinforce the negative stereotypes of the Great Satin.

 

You may read that as a continuation of the victim mentality -- and you'd have a point -- but it doesn't make it any less true. You say the silent majority needs to speak up in order to enact meaningful change. I agree with you on that. What we need to do is help them speak out. And you don't help the situation by continuing the same backwards thinking that has been going on since the Crusades.