SHOCK! MUSLIMs OUTRAGED!

[yall]

And here is a nice op-ed piece that sums up who is really being irresponsible right now:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214338,00.html

 

(I know, I know "Ahhhhhh!!! FoxNews... Right-Wing Conspiracy!!!!")

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

"Wantonly slaughtered"?  Most Islamic cities had thriving Christian and Jewish communities well into the 20th century. 

778470[/snapback]

Uh, if you'd read what I said, I said those non-muslim communities who RESISTED forceful conversion were wantonly slaughtered. See: Toureg resistance to Arab expansion, and read this quote:

 

"Historians have argued that the losses at Tours and the later campaigns contributed to the Great Berber Revolt in 740, which ultimately helped bring down the Umayyad Caliphate. In his book The End of the Jihad State Khalid Yahya Blankinship wrote in 2003:

 

Battle of Tours

Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond. These external factors began with crushing military defeats at Byzantium, Toulouse and Tours, which led to the Great Berber Revolt of 740 in Iberia and Northern Africa."

 

Now, WHY would the berbers have revolted against the Muslim Arab conquerors? Could it have been that they were manifestly UNHAPPY?

[UConn James]

Where do you get off, JSP?!?!

 

We're supposed to apologize to the Muslims for everything. We must apologize for the Crusades, apologize for being attacked on 9/11.... We must apologize for Daniel Pearl being beheaded. We must apologize to the Muslims for our breathing. Only then can Ahmed eat his falafel in peace.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Rational worldview or not, it is entirely inconsistent with a "religion of peace" that the Pope's life is threatened, he is burned in effigy and his apology is "not enough". 

 

All of this for quoting a source from 600 years ago for two sentences in a long speech.

 

I hope there is one Muslim leader that has accepted the Pope's apology and/or renounced the calls for his life.  I haven't seen it, but maybe it has happened.

 

I cannot see indicting the whole religion for the acts of these people in regard to the Pope.  They are not all of Islam.  The reaction is big enough (even if fanned by the press) to indicate to me that not everything is hunky dory.

778868[/snapback]

I'll agree. And again, I'll state that the effects of technology and media have a lot more to do with this. The broadcasting of these sentiments from both sides amplifies the severity. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have made it through the dark ages if the same tools were available then.

[UConn James]

And here is a nice op-ed piece that sums up who is really being irresponsible right now:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214338,00.html

 

(I know, I know "Ahhhhhh!!! FoxNews... Right-Wing Conspiracy!!!!")

779036[/snapback]

 

Despite it being run by FAUX News....

 

That's exactly what I posted upthread. Look at the Pope's words in what the media has touted as his "apology." He was sorry for the reaction the remarks caused.

 

I don't expect the Pope to apologize for saying something that is true.

[GG]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, nitwit.

 

What, you think Western colonial practices haven't contributed to Arab xenophobia and nationalism?  Ever heard of the Suez Canal?

778832[/snapback]

 

It wouldn't be fair to exclude the flies that Josef & Nikita threw in that cauldron back in the day. (and in my opinion the true catalysts for modern day Islam-based violence)

[OGTEleven]

I'll agree.  And again, I'll state that the effects of technology and media have a lot more to do with this.  The broadcasting of these sentiments from both sides amplifies the severity.  I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have made it through the dark ages if the same tools were available then.

779155[/snapback]

I can't disagree about the media angle. I will opine that it doesn't cause the reactionary behavior, but agree that it makes it spread more quickly.

 

I think the true cause of the reactionary behavior lies in a weakness within the beliefs of people on both "sides" of the argument. If the violent members of Islam truly believed it was a religion of peace and the right path, they would react differently. The "burning in effigy" type reactions display more fear than strength. The "nuke the ME" types show a mirror image of that fear and lack of tolerance.

 

Like it or not, truly peaceful Muslims are caught in the middle. It's not their fault that they're caught in the middle but there they are. They have to play a big part in fixing this. They can't do it alone, but it can't be done without them. Their participation would go a long way to proving that Islam is a religion of peace.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I can't disagree about the media angle.  I will opine that it doesn't cause the reactionary behavior, but agree that it makes it spread more quickly.

 

I think the true cause of the reactionary behavior lies in a weakness within the beliefs of people on both "sides" of the argument.  If the violent members of Islam truly believed it was a religion of peace and the right path, they would react differently.  The "burning in effigy" type reactions display more fear than strength.  The "nuke the ME" types show a mirror image of that fear and lack of tolerance.

 

Like it or not, truly peaceful Muslims are caught in the middle.  It's not their fault that they're caught in the middle but there they are.  They have to play a big part in fixing this.  They can't do it alone, but it can't be done without them.  Their participation would go a long way to proving that Islam is a religion of peace.

779199[/snapback]

Great post.

[pdh1]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, nitwit.

 

What, you think Western colonial practices haven't contributed to Arab xenophobia and nationalism?  Ever heard of the Suez Canal?

778832[/snapback]

 

Blame Whitey is short hand for "Tired of the liberal belief that anyone (minus those that are Western/White/Christian/Jews) is not responsible for any of their actions, not matter how hateful or violent, because there must be some event, not matter how many hundred of years in that past, that made them have no choice whatsoever in their lives, and every wrong deed they commit was pre-determined by the evil actions inflicted on them by everyone that is Western/White/Christian/Jewish at some point in history.

 

And keep the name calling to yourself and your circle of two friends.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Blame Whitey is short hand for "Tired of the liberal belief that anyone (minus those that are Western/White/Christian/Jews) is not responsible for any of their actions, not matter how hateful or violent, because there must be some event, not matter how many hundred of years in that past, that made them have no choice whatsoever in their lives, and every wrong deed they commit was pre-determined by the evil actions inflicted on them by everyone that is Western/White/Christian/Jewish at some point in history.

779284[/snapback]

No, it's more about the act of your inserting your idea of what my opinion is as a stand-in for what it really is, to defuse it and treat it as an invalid argument. It's a classic tactic of the right, where a world of language, image, and impressions is a much better facsimile of the real thing. Remember "we create our own reality"? Who said that?

 

My opinion is that we should consider context, not as an excuse, but as a template for understanding how we can approach the present and the future without repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

No one is absolving non-Westerners for their actions, and you shouldn't do the same for the West. "We're #1!" is no better than "Blame Whitey."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It wouldn't be fair to exclude the flies that Josef & Nikita threw in that cauldron back in the day.  (and in my opinion the true catalysts for modern day Islam-based violence)

779188[/snapback]

 

"A" cause, maybe. Personally, I think the USSR was merely an exacerbating factor, not a cause. The Arab League and Muslim Brotherhood were probably foregone conclusions as a backlash to Western imperialism no matter what, and the British post-colonial policy (particularly their breathtakingly inept "We're outta here, you figure it out yourselves" policy on Palestine) contributed far more than the USSR did.

[pdh1]

No one is absolving non-Westerners for their actions, and you shouldn't do the same for the West.  "We're #1!" is no better than "Blame Whitey."

779302[/snapback]

 

Completely over complicating the matter. Its as simple as this. People don't like being blown up in the home country on their way to work while flying a plane, getting on the metro, etc..

Before some one chimes in with the "the US military does the same thing", please realize, if they just want to kill innocent civilians, the middle east would be parking lot in about in 15 minutes, and there would be nothing they could do to stop it. Think the other side would show the same control of that power? Do you really?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Blame Whitey is short hand for "Tired of the liberal belief that anyone (minus those that are Western/White/Christian/Jews) is not responsible for any of their actions, not matter how hateful or violent, because there must be some event, not matter how many hundred of years in that past, that made them have no choice whatsoever in their lives, and every wrong deed they commit was pre-determined by the evil actions inflicted on them by everyone that is Western/White/Christian/Jewish at some point in history.

 

And keep the name calling to yourself and your circle of two friends.

779284[/snapback]

 

Wow. Thanks for proving that you are, in fact, a nitwit. Where did I say Muslims didn't have a choice, or that their actions are pre-determined? Here I (and my "two" friends [sic]) thought I was saying Islamic extremists choose not to follow the teachings of their own religion. Where did I say I was excusing anyone? (You do, I assume, know the difference between an "excuse" and an "explanation"? Hmmm...probably not...)

[RuntheDamnBall]

Completely over complicating the matter. Its as simple as this. People don't like being blown up in the home country on their way to work while flying a plane, getting on the metro, etc..

Before some one chimes in with the "the US military does the same thing", please realize, if they just want to kill innocent civilians, the middle east would be parking lot in about in 15 minutes, and there would be nothing they could do to stop it. Think the other side would show the same control of that power? Do you really?

779326[/snapback]

That's a baseless question entirely because the location of power has everything to do with the fueling of radical Islam. They are in a weak position generally and a virus feeds on weakness.

 

Two responses here:

1) Just because we are capable of much greater destruction doesn't mean we shouldn't heed caution and realize how bad ANY killing of innocents looks. Being the good guy means being the good guy all the time. It doesn't mean just being better than the worst.

 

2) You still divide it into us and them when it's much deeper than that. There is a more neutral segment of "them" that is much greater in numbers but doesn't use violent means. We need them and I'd like to think they need us. The radicals know that when there is violence, people watch. It is incredibly difficult to raise one's voice so that it rises above violence. I hope we can make that possible. If we don't let ourselves become the center of attention in this struggle, we will see moderate Muslims take a stand against the violent strands. Right now, we're doing everything possible to keep the attention on us. And that's just the way AQ and co. like it.

[GG]

"A" cause, maybe.  Personally, I think the USSR was merely an exacerbating factor, not a cause.  The Arab League and Muslim Brotherhood were probably foregone conclusions as a backlash to Western imperialism no matter what, and the British post-colonial policy (particularly their breathtakingly inept "We're outta here, you figure it out yourselves" policy on Palestine) contributed far more than the USSR did.

779321[/snapback]

 

..and probably would have remained backwater grassroots organizations that wouldn't have had the funding nor organizational skills to evolve into what we have now.

[pdh1]

That's a baseless question entirely because the location of power has everything to do with the fueling of radical Islam.  They are in a weak position generally and a virus feeds on weakness.

779347[/snapback]

 

The location of the power is purely a result of the societies, not one "keeping the other" down.

One, the Western, promotes free thinking and open discussion, like we are doing here.

The other doesn't. Living in culture that is stuck in the 7th century tends to slow one down when comes to scientific breakthroughs and healthy economies.

[pdh1]

Wow.  Thanks for proving that you are, in fact, a nitwit.  Where did I say Muslims didn't have a choice

779329[/snapback]

 

"That that changed around 1950 with the advent of Arab nationalism is not the fault of Islam.."

 

 

Your words, sparky nuts...

[RuntheDamnBall]

The location of the power is purely a result of the societies, not one "keeping the other" down.

One, the Western, promotes free thinking and open discussion,

779364[/snapback]

So Britain promoted free thinking and open discussion among all citizens in all of its colonies and somehow the dumb "stuck in the 7th century" natives didn't get it, right?

[RkFast]

Here is what happens to Free thinkers in Indonesia. But dont worry...its only a "fringe element."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=319Q4lDyNWI

 

Look forward to someone posting the Christian equivalent to this....that didnt take place 500 years ago.

[GG]

So Britain promoted free thinking and open discussion among all citizens in all of its colonies and somehow the dumb "stuck in the 7th century" natives didn't get it, right?

779386[/snapback]

Yes.

 

Did India get it? The Carribean?