|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 8, 2007 17:38:51 GMT -5
How is where we help with "democracy" decided? We are in Middle East to help the situation, similar situation in Vietnam -- but we avoid the Sudan (Africa.) You think we should intervene in Sudan? I could easily be persuaded in this. Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihadwatch has been arguing that for some time now. Well before George Clooney took note. I begin to understand how the French feel about our bravado about "saving them" in WWII. The left wants a pat on the back because they have finally noticed Sudan. Do you realize that Sudan is an islamic country? That the janjaweed -that some think were armed by the French- are islamic jihadists that kill Christian and animist farmers? Are you sure that we haven't materially aided the gov't of Chad that has recently been operating in Sudan against the janjaweed?
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 8, 2007 18:29:24 GMT -5
I don't relent. I find arguing with someone that won't acknowledge that we eradicated the native Americans through government policies that included relocation to reservations, starvation through this relocation to WASTELANDS, exposure to smallpox and the bullet and sword..unproductive. Or that we somehow lost the Vietnam war because of lack of public support. www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798There are plenty of opinions on Islam and the reform of Islam. Gee, I'm really suprised that people that LEFT the religion have negative opinions of it. Is this it? This is what you bring? Again I go back to an OBVIOUS fact, there are 1 Billion Muslims..the vast majority are not radical. I'm sure Islam will reform like all religions reform....after decades or centuries of debate. I think a huge factor will be the education of young muslim girls. Women were secondary citizens in this christian country just last century. One of the reasons its so easy to recruit people for the jihadists is the same reason it was easy to recruit white males in the south to the KKK after the civil war. Lack of economic opportunity, humilated, and given an object to blame for their situation. I know one thing for sure, reform Must come from within.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 8, 2007 21:56:17 GMT -5
Look....don't take MY word for it that we lost Vietnam at least in large part due to the lack of public suport for the effort.
Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel have a semi-regular editorial debate called "Common Ground" in USA Today in which they present their often diametrically opposed views on various issues. Today's topic was the war protestors and the impending Congressional 'no confidence' votes.
Thomas made the point that our enemies do, indeed, listen very closely to not only the debate but how the debate is conducted and what specifically is said and that they are absolutely motivated and emboldened by the rhetoric coming out of the Left's leaders. He quoted a North Vietnamese Army officer (named Hu I want to say...wish I'd saved the piece) who said that he took heart everytime they saw a massive anti-war protest march because he grew increasingly convinced that the US would not stick with the effort.
In addition, Bin Laden himself has said more than once that he made his decision to conduct the 9/11 attacks at least in part due to the feckless response to the first WTC attacks and other provocations by his group and, especially, Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon and Clinton's decision to pull out of Somalia.
These aren't the kind of people who will play nice if we give them our ball.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 8, 2007 22:59:27 GMT -5
Look. Democracy in war time is at a disadvantage as compared to dictatorships.
Free Speech, Freedom of the Press, Right to Assemble--yes it gets messy with an unpopular war that a majority of the people don't want, but isn't that what we stand for and what we fight for?
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 9, 2007 10:20:50 GMT -5
Yesterday at 9:20am, killer wrote:How is where we help with "democracy" decided? We are in Middle East to help the situation, similar situation in Vietnam -- but we avoid the Sudan (Africa.)
Maccus wrote, "You think we should intervene in Sudan?" ________
The point I was trying to make above is that it really isn't about helping with "democracy," in my opinion. Groups are fighting/killing each other by the masses in a number of places, but we choose to "help" in the Middle East. So I think it has more to do with power/control and oil than with democracy.
Now to answer Maccus' question. Not sure. If we are going to go around helping nations who are at war among themselves, then we should not leave out the Sudan. But is this the role of our government? I don't know. Perhaps an idea for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 12:59:03 GMT -5
I don't relent. I find arguing with someone that won't acknowledge that we eradicated the native Americans through government policies that included relocation to reservations, starvation through this relocation to WASTELANDS, exposure to smallpox and the bullet and sword..unproductive. Or that we somehow lost the Vietnam war because of lack of public support. www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798There are plenty of opinions on Islam and the reform of Islam. Gee, I'm really suprised that people that LEFT the religion have negative opinions of it. Is this it? This is what you bring? Again I go back to an OBVIOUS fact, there are 1 Billion Muslims..the vast majority are not radical. I'm sure Islam will reform like all religions reform....after decades or centuries of debate. I think a huge factor will be the education of young muslim girls. Women were secondary citizens in this christian country just last century. One of the reasons its so easy to recruit people for the jihadists is the same reason it was easy to recruit white males in the south to the KKK after the civil war. Lack of economic opportunity, humilated, and given an object to blame for their situation. I know one thing for sure, reform Must come from within. Do you secretly agree with me and present opposition for the furtherance of debate? The article that you link to does refute Daniel Pipes ecumenist arguement with Daniel Pipes own words. It goes on to conclude in part two www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16801&p=1 -if you did get that far- that "The prospect seems so horrible that the ecumenists cling to the faith in a moderate Islam no matter how unsupported it may be by the evidence." Further clairifying that,"In any debate between hard-liners and putative moderates, the hard-liners will have the Koran on their side and will ultimately win the debate." Have you ever read more than a headline in your life?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 13:08:56 GMT -5
The point I was trying to make above is that it really isn't about helping with "democracy," in my opinion. Groups are fighting/killing each other by the masses in a number of places, but we choose to "help" in the Middle East. So I think it has more to do with power/control and oil than with democracy. Now to answer Maccus' question. Not sure. If we are going to go around helping nations who are at war among themselves, then we should not leave out the Sudan. But is this the role of our government? I don't know. Perhaps an idea for another thread. Nigeria has oil. Why do we not intervene there? Why do we not support native Igbo that face death from jihadist neighbors? Since after all they do have oil. And the oil is in the Igbo region. The truth comes down to a number of matters. We could point to several UN mandates of which Iraq was in flagrant violation. Sudan is a politically more troublesome adversary. During much of their repressive actions in Darfur, Sudan was on the UN human rights committee. If I remember correctly they did once even chair said committee while simultaneously arming the janjaweed to kill Christian and animist citizens of Darfur. If you will read the link provided by "richbrout" then you may see why Iraq is very important to strategic containment of jihad.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 9, 2007 15:10:14 GMT -5
If 85% of Islam is not radical then a MODERATE Islam DOES EXIST.
Who interprets the Koran correctly doesn't mean crap to me.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 15:19:37 GMT -5
How catchy. That would fit nicely on a bumper sticker. Too bad that it is a dangerous over-simplification of the very real problem that is experienced by muslims. "Gina Khan is a very brave woman. Born in Birmingham 38 years ago to Pakistani parents, she has run away from an arranged marriage, dressed herself in jeans and dared to speak out against the increasing radicalisation of her community." “I truly believe that all these mosques here are importing jihad. The radical teaching is filtering through, and these mosques are not regulated. They are supporting everything that is wrong about Islam. We within the community knew this. People are lying. They are in denial. They knew they were bringing in radicals." www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015200.php
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 9, 2007 17:55:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 18:30:38 GMT -5
I am getting a little bored with the condescension. So like a child, the toy that you did bring here to play with you are now tired of? Your first comments on this thread were dismissive and condescending. What you tire of is that my condescension toward you is by now, well founded. I said in the above post that the education of Muslim girls would be a seed to reform and I donate to that end to the Central Asia Institute. www.centralasiainstitute.org/That much I can commend you for. Another link to an article that you have obviously not read. This supposed moderate does well document the radicalization of Australia. And that is if he was credible. Did you notice that in the linked article, "There are also allegations that the Mufti tailors his message to his audience. On a recent trip to Lebanon in February, he allegedly called for an Islamic revolution and Islamic ideology in Western countries during a sermon. He is even alleged to have said, "September 11 is God's work against oppressors." You probably missed that, it was some distance below the headline. Or possibly did you notice that this Sydney Muslim leader Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly is the very same one that referred to women as "uncovered meat" saying, "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? "The uncovered meat is the problem." www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html and later went on to say"We (Muslims) came as free people. We bought our own tickets. We are entitled to Australia more than they are," www.smh.com.au/news/National/Muslims-more-suited-to-Australia-Mufti/2007/01/11/1168105115048.htmlAre you throwing these soft balls on purpose? Or have you never read more than a headline?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 18:45:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 9, 2007 20:17:16 GMT -5
"However, Hilaly's spokesman, Keysar Trad, insists that his words had been taken out of context and changed during the Arabic-to-English translation.
"The Mufti never gave a call to arms or any of the things that the media is saying right now. That's rubbish," he insists.
Despite the kerfuffle that ensued, many Australian leaders remain convinced that Hilaly is someone they can deal with. "
Seems like you are the one that pulls what he wants to hear from these articles.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 10, 2007 19:03:54 GMT -5
Maccus and I have had a (from my persepctive) rather interesting debate regarding whether or not Islam has a "moderate" wing at all and, if they do, why don't we hear more from them. I do not think I am misstating his position when I say that he's very skeptical that there really is such a thing as "moderate" Islam and I admit that he has a great deal of evidence supporting such a contention. (If I'm wong, Maccus, I'm counting on you to correct me...."Weapon, you ignorant slut!" will do just fine) I, on the other hand, do hold out at least some hope and I base that hope in part on who I consider to be the Islamic Jesus, Irshad Manji. www.muslim-refusenik.com/Frankly, I don't think that what I said above is either blasphemous or an exaggeration. She just might be the key to moderating (and modernizing) Islam. I consider her to be one of the bravest people in the world because, let me assure you, her views are not exactly popular with the Imams and Jihadists around the world. I made the point elsewhere that what Islam needs is their own "New Testament" that replaces much of the violence done in God's name of the old order with a new emphasis of respect and toleration for those who differ from you. Irshad Manji advocates, to my mind, just such a New Order for Islam and, as an extraordinarily well-educated and intelligent human being who just happens to be a lifelong Muslim, she speaks with almost unique life experience and knowledge of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Feb 10, 2007 21:53:15 GMT -5
I've seen her on Bill maher several times.
This is the point I am trying to make. THERE IS A MODERATE ISLAM.
Do you believe that all of the ONE BILLION muslims on this planet are radical? I don't because if they were we would know it.
If they are, we need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediatly (why die trying to bring democracy to Radicals?
But if you only go to Jihadwatch and ex muslims and FOX news for your info....you won't hear the moderates I assure you.
The whole "war of Civilizations" attitude will do nothing but alienate the moderates our boys are trying to help.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 11, 2007 17:57:35 GMT -5
Maccus and I have had a (from my persepctive) rather interesting debate regarding whether or not Islam has a "moderate" wing at all and, if they do, why don't we hear more from them. Thank you, You have presented your objections and questions forthrightly and without willful relativist obscurantism. I do not think I am misstating his position when I say that he's very skeptical that there really is such a thing as "moderate" Islam and I admit that he has a great deal of evidence supporting such a contention. (If I'm wong, Maccus, I'm counting on you to correct me...."Weapon, you ignorant slut!" will do just fine) You are correct. My skepticism is not that muslims may dream of a moderate islam. I am skeptical that such dreamers can ever wrest islam from its true believers. I, on the other hand, do hold out at least some hope and I base that hope in part on who I consider to be the Islamic Jesus, Irshad Manji. www.muslim-refusenik.com/Irshad Manji is an important voice in the discussion, but then her argument does not weather criticism. www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014678.php I believe her to be honest in trying to moderate islam. She was one of the few nominal muslims that supported Pope Benedict's remarks. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/freespeech/main2017202.shtmlI believe she is dangerously deluded in the manner in which she thinks islam can be moderated. I do not believe that she believes that a moderate islam does exist as much as she hopes that it one day can. Reformers such as herself can reasonably expect death if discovered by jihadist that are no small minority in the islamic world. She is one muslim that does speak refreshingly honestly about the very real and present dangers of islam. She does rarely address and has never refuted the koranic proofs of jihadists. So are we to believe that islam is not inherently violent because currently active jihadists are thought to be a minority, at the same time that we are invited to think the minority of Irshad Manji proves that islam can reform in general. ...her views are not exactly popular with the Imams and Jihadists around the world. And can she meet their criticisms? www.examinethetruth.com/manjism/Irshad_Manji_propaganda.htmI made the point elsewhere that what Islam needs is their own "New Testament" that replaces much of the violence done in God's name of the old order with a new emphasis of respect and toleration for those who differ from you. Irshad Manji advocates, to my mind, just such a New Order for Islam and, as an extraordinarily well-educated and intelligent human being who just happens to be a lifelong Muslim, she speaks with almost unique life experience and knowledge of the issue. "Almost unique" is a carefully chosen phrase. Her experience does separate her from us, but not Ibn Warraq, Walid Shoebat, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Nonnie Darwish, or Wafa Sultan.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 11, 2007 18:01:56 GMT -5
"However, Hilaly's spokesman, Keysar Trad, insists that his words had been taken out of context and changed during the Arabic-to-English translation. "The Mufti never gave a call to arms or any of the things that the media is saying right now. That's rubbish," he insists. Despite the kerfuffle that ensued, many Australian leaders remain convinced that Hilaly is someone they can deal with. " Seems like you are the one that pulls what he wants to hear from these articles. I've heard such before. Do you find this insistence of his spokesperson still credible after his subsequent statements? Was his statement about sexually assaulted women also mis-translated? Or his statement about Australians in general? Perhaps, if Australia had better Arabic translators they would not be blocking this "moderate's" re-entry into their country.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 12, 2007 18:25:47 GMT -5
I did use the phrase "almost unique" as a way of hedging my bets.
Frankly, because of the lack of outrage expressed by the "moderate" Muslim world, I have little way of knowing just how unique her views are. I suspect that, like the so-called "Silent Majority" referred to here in the US on and off since the 1960s, as rich said, the majority- I'd go so far as to say "vast majority"- of Muslims aren't radical. It's just that, as it is here in the US with regards to the Democrat party, the voices of radicalism are far louder than the voices of moderation and the effect is to give one a jaded view of Islam.
I'd love to see far more voices be added to Manji's, for the benefit of us all. Not speaking out against the chorus of radicalism is, in my view, tantamount to supporting the radicals (albeit passively).
But the reality of what we have now is that al Zawahiri and "President Tom" are seen as THE official spokesmen for Islam and people's perceptions are being shaped by their words because they are the only Muslims you seem to hear from. It's like Democrats having Michael Moore as their 'official' spokesperson (though Howard Dean isn't too far behind him, radically-speaking)..... or, to be fair, Pat Robertson or Jimmy Falwell being the "official' spokesman for the Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 12, 2007 18:56:48 GMT -5
Americans have come to believe in a "silent majority" because conservatives still win elections in the face of demonstrations. Hamas wins elections in Psudo-stinian Isreal.
I wouldn't say that there is a lack of outrage in the muslim world. Muslims managed to mobilize against cartoons and remarks of Pope Benedict to destroy the lives and property of the closest unbelievers that could be found. What you fail to see is an expression of outrage toward the same things that we find outrageous.
Muslims are also quick to tell you or I that we have misunderstood islam. They shrink from telling such directly to jihadists. The clearest messages are from apostates that have come to realize that reform of islam is impossible. Those that will earnestly attempt reform are to be comended, but their task is hopeless. The koran, hadith, violent example of mohamhead, and 1400 years of dhimmi beating tradition are all aligned against such reformers.
Was not mohamed considered to be an official spokesman? The caliphs after him? These historical examples do bolster the jihadist's cause more than that of the hopeful reformer. No these are not the only voices of islam. Many others also call for the violent subjugation and death of unbelievers. Such is after all the example of mo' and of the last abrogating verses of the koran.
"President Tom"?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 19:07:20 GMT -5
Interesting comments MG.
"Muslims managed to mobilize against cartoons and remarks of Pope Benedict to destroy the lives and property of the closest unbelievers that could be found."
Do you really think the total demonstrators in regards to these two events were a significant number? You know how the media likes to take certain pictures of demonstrations in order to give the impression of numbers that fit their agenda. They do it all the time. Maybe I am wrong on this but I didn't gather that there were a lot of demonstrators, just very vocal and animated ones that the media by-passed millions of other Muslims standing in front of them, to get to.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 12, 2007 21:41:10 GMT -5
I do believe the numbers significant. Significant at least in outstripping any muslim protest of actual outrages such as the many acts of violent jihad that do occur across the globe. The BBC has compiled a timeline with I think "significant numbers" concerning the cartoon intifada only. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/4688602.stmAnd when a more peaceful protest was planned in London, did the - Protesters wave banners denouncing that "In the afternoon of Feb. 5, the Italian priest [Father Andrea Santoro] was shot twice while he was praying in his parish, St. Mary Church, in the Black Sea coastal city of Trebizond."? No
- www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600695.htm
- Protesters wave banners denouncing the burning of embassies? No
- Protesters wave banners denouncing Osmama Bin Laden? No
- "Protesters waved banners calling for unity against Islamophobia."
"Police said the total turnout was about 5,000, a figure endorsed by a spokesman from the Muslim Council of Britain." news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4700482.stmIn fact the media does go out of its way to find voices of moderation. The rally that is cited above was celebrated for its restraint even while it called for the limitation of free speech in Western countries. Notice also the mistake that "richbrout" made in regard to the dated comments of the infamous Sheik "uncovered meat" Hilaly. Also note the selective reporting of the burning of cars in France. galliawatch.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-eve-revisited.htmlDo you really believe that the media, whom you obviously do not trust, would be over reporting the numbers of jihadist sympathizers?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 12, 2007 22:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 12, 2007 22:36:29 GMT -5
First off....
"President Tom" is the nickname given to Mahmoud Amadinijiad by Glenn Beck because Beck couldn't pronounce his name correctly.
I think the reason Hamas won in the Palestinian elections is much the same reason that Democrats won in ours, that being the voters were tired of promises unfulfilled by the current group in power. I'm sure that a percentage probably did vote for Hamas soley because they can best "stick it to Israel"; I'm not convinced that it was the majority.
Also, with Hamas, as with Hizbollah, you have a group that is far more than a terrorist organization, at least in the eyes of its 'constituents". Most of the schools are built and run by them. Same for the hospitals. Ditto what police forces there are. And even trash pickup is done by people paid by Hamas/Hizbollah. People are willing to dance with the devil, there and here, if they can get at least some of their basic needs met.
They are a bit touchy regarding such, aren't they?
Still....I wonder just how many of the people we see in those mass demonstrations are genuinely moved to outrage and just how many are there because they are either instructed to be there by their Imams or, frankly, paid to be there.
(same for some of the protests here for that matter)
>nods<
They know that they can get away with telling us infidels one thing (the Koran very clearly tells them they can lie to us whenever necessary) while they tell their own people something quite different. Arafat was the master of that tactic. If you heard him speak in a Western setting, he sounded pretty conciliatory; listen to him speaking in Arabic to the homeboys and you got quite the different story.
You're on to something here.
Let me make a Christian analogy if I might.
If someone from outside were to try to tell Christians that they had it all wrong, how might someone go about it?
I doubt that you'd be able to get very far if you took issue directly with the words of Jesus. Son of God thing and all that. Tough to argue with.
Ahhh....but might one make some headway wth the words of the disciples or, indeed, those that came after them (popes, etc.)? Even though many of the disciples have been Beatified- and mind I'm not up on my Catholicism- I don't >think< that makes them divinely infallible, so they would be subject to the same sort of interpretations as one, say, Socrates, Hobbes or Chomsky, right? If you can debate Marx, you can debate John. Or Peter.
Turning to Islam, the way to modernize it would, I think, be through the open and free exchange of viewpoints among their clerics and imams, fundamentalist and reformer (or refusenik) and let the people decide which interpretation provides a better life here and Hereafter.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 13, 2007 1:49:32 GMT -5
First off.... "President Tom" is the nickname given to Mahmoud Amadinijiad by Glenn Beck because Beck couldn't pronounce his name correctly. "President Tom" -and likely Jimmy Carter- would have us to believe that he was democratically elected. I do not believe that to be true, but neither do I assume he is totally without support from the populace. I think the reason Hamas won in the Palestinian elections is much the same reason that Democrats won in ours, that being the voters were tired of promises unfulfilled by the current group in power. I'm sure that a percentage probably did vote for Hamas soley because they can best "stick it to Israel"; I'm not convinced that it was the majority. Many of the Democrats that actually gained did run very center of left campaigns. I forget who said it but they suggested that the election was more a defeat for Republicans than conservatism. Contrast that to the elections in Pseudo-stine where no one ran on any platform of not "sticking to Isreal." Fatah as you later cite is well known for fomenting its own hatred of Jews. So you are not convinced that a majority of Pseudo-stinians hate Jews for simply being Jews or for that matter Christians for being Christian? What is the current religious make-up of Bethleham? Most Christians have fled islamic persecution. Also, with Hamas, as with Hizbollah, you have a group that is far more than a terrorist organization, at least in the eyes of its 'constituents". Most of the schools are built and run by them. Same for the hospitals. Ditto what police forces there are. And even trash pickup is done by people paid by Hamas/Hizbollah. People are willing to dance with the devil, there and here, if they can get at least some of their basic needs met. And to that list that Nazi's are well known for punctuality of trains and Bull Conner is well known for cleaning the streets. They are a bit touchy regarding such, aren't they? Still....I wonder just how many of the people we see in those mass demonstrations are genuinely moved to outrage and just how many are there because they are either instructed to be there by their Imams or, frankly, paid to be there. Why, do you find some comfort in a mercenary's knife rather than a partisan's. >nods< They know that they can get away with telling us infidels one thing (the Koran very clearly tells them they can lie to us whenever necessary) while they tell their own people something quite different. Arafat was the master of that tactic. If you heard him speak in a Western setting, he sounded pretty conciliatory; listen to him speaking in Arabic to the homeboys and you got quite the different story. It's called taqiya. You're on to something here. Let me make a Christian analogy if I might. If someone from outside were to try to tell Christians that they had it all wrong, how might someone go about it? How might they go about it? How have they gone about it, is a better question. I recall that Neil Young asked "Southern Man" to remember what his Good Book said. Don't try that with muslims until you've carefully read their book. I doubt that you'd be able to get very far if you took issue directly with the words of Jesus. Son of God thing and all that. Tough to argue with. Actually, I think this is exactly where you would argue. Many reformers have done just that. Christ is an impossible model to perfectly emulate. If you were to point out where a sincere Christian was wrong in his emulation then I think you would see quick acceptance of your point. Before you try that tactic with a muslim you should know that mo' laid his life down for nobody. Ahhh....but might one make some headway wth the words of the disciples or, indeed, those that came after them (popes, etc.)? Even though many of the disciples have been Beatified- and mind I'm not up on my Catholicism- I don't >think< that makes them divinely infallible, so they would be subject to the same sort of interpretations as one, say, Socrates, Hobbes or Chomsky, right? If you can debate Marx, you can debate John. Or Peter. You can try, but the fact that the koran is supposedly in its original language is quite a prise to muslims. I don't think you quite understand the affront it is to say that the koran is wrong. You might as well say that islam is altogether wrong. I have. In regards to debating Peter or John, mo' is the only recognized revealer of the koran. Even though it was literally written by others since mo' was himself illiterate, mo' is the single source for the koran. If you dispute a word of the koran, then you dispute mo'. What islam do you expect to have after you have convinced a muslim that mohamed was wrong? Turning to Islam, the way to modernize it would, I think, be through the open and free exchange of viewpoints among their clerics and imams, fundamentalist and reformer (or refusenik) and let the people decide which interpretation provides a better life here and Hereafter. And such has already happened. It did not last. It can not last. The very formation and every precedent that was subsequently set is one that supports the jihadists cause. What you describe is an islamic world that did cause the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt to form.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 14, 2007 13:51:57 GMT -5
You know how the media likes to take certain pictures of demonstrations in order to give the impression of numbers that fit their agenda. They do it all the time. Maybe I am wrong on this but I didn't gather that there were a lot of demonstrators, just very vocal and animated ones that the media by-passed millions of other Muslims standing in front of them, to get to. A tale of two shootings. From the time of the first report February 12, 2007, 10:03 PM EST PHILADELPHIA -- Police are investigating a report of a shooting in an office building at the old Philadelphia Navy Yard, a radio station reported Monday night.
Police received a 911 call at about 8:30 p.m. of a shooting in Building 79 of the Philadelphia Naval Business Center in South Philadelphia, KYW-AM reported. www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-navy-yard-shooting,0,4988205.story To being told a name and motive. 20 hours and 34 minutes. February 13, 2007, 6:37 PM EST PHILADELPHIA -- An angry investor who killed three people and himself at a marketing company said he was upset about losing money in a failed real-estate venture and told his victims to "say your prayers" before he opened fire, police said Tuesday.
Vincent J. Dortch, 44, of Newark, Del., brought an AK-47-style pistol and a .40-caliber Glock handgun to a Monday night meeting he had organized under the pretense that he had another investor, authorities said. www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--navyyardshooting0213feb13,0,3123021.story Occurring that same night. www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5223643 We learn of another shooting the next morning. February 13, 2007 SALT LAKE CITY - A gunman entered a shopping mall and began randomly shooting last night, killing five people before he was killed, police said. www.newsday.com/news/printedition/stories/ny-usmall135092212feb13,0,1586795.story We get a name 2 days later and are still waiting for a motive. February 14, 2007, 11:09 AM EST
Investigators were still trying to figure out why Sulejmen Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian immigrant, opened fire Monday on shoppers, killing five and injuring four others. www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-utah-shooting,0,652468.story Why would a muslim go to a local mall "to kill a large number of people"? Gee, could it have anything to do with the command to "kill all unbelievers" to be found in the koran? "009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html Just another case of "sudden jihad syndrome." www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015250.php
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 14, 2007 14:07:16 GMT -5
MG -
You are correct...the media does manipulate news with certain words, certain pictures and by under or over reporting events.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 14, 2007 14:32:58 GMT -5
That's true.
I think it's reuters- they of the Photoshopped pix during the Israeli-Hizbollah War last summer- has forbidden their writers and contributors from even using the word "terrorist" on the basis of they are journalists and journalists should avoid making "moral judgements" on just who is and who isn't a "terrorists".
For myself, the distinction is pretty easy to make but then I'm a rational human being.
MG-
I think the problem you'd have using Mohammed to try to argue that the Q'uran is wrong is the same one you'd have trying to convince a Christian that Christianity is wrong by using Jesus' words to press your case, namely that that is an overly threatening tactic that will force your opponent to retreat into a shell of faith, faith that the words of his Prophet are perfect.
I think you'd have a much more free and open exchange of ideas if you argue from the perspective that those who wrote down Jesus' and Mohammed's words and those that still later began to offer their own interpretations of their words have got it wrong. I don't think your opponent would be so quick to get defensive about their beliefs if you point out that humans, being fallible, might have made mistakes whereas Mohammed and Jesus did not. While I'm usually not big on "attacking the messenger", I think this is a case wherein you might be able to break through the faith defense mechanism by pointing out that those who transcribed, translated and interpreted the words are subject to human failings, if as those who gave the words originally are not.
You aren't disputing Mohammed; you're disputing your local Shayk or Imam.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 14, 2007 15:39:07 GMT -5
MG - You are correct...the media does manipulate news with certain words, certain pictures and by under or over reporting events. So, do you still think that the media over-reports the number of jihadists sympathisers, such as did protest worldwide over cartoons?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 14, 2007 15:55:14 GMT -5
... reuters- they of the Photoshopped pix during the Israeli-Hizbollah .... Have you seen Sout-Al-Koufar's Rocket Ride on Youtube? They tend to ban it on Dhimmitube, but it can still be found. I think the problem you'd have using Mohammed to try to argue that the Q'uran is wrong is the same one you'd have trying to convince a Christian that Christianity is wrong by using Jesus' words to press your case, namely that that is an overly threatening tactic that will force your opponent to retreat into a shell of faith, faith that the words of his Prophet are perfect. Why do you feel the need to convince a Christian that Christianity is wrong? If it be to moderate behavior, then no attack of Christ's example is necessary. Rather the reminder of Christ's actions is itself moderating. The same can not be said of mo'. This is part of the danger of thinking that islam can reform along the same lines as Christianity. ... I think you'd have a much more free and open exchange of ideas if you argue from the perspective that those who wrote down Jesus' and Mohammed's words and those that still later began to offer their own interpretations of their words have got it wrong. I don't think your opponent would be so quick to get defensive about their beliefs if you point out that humans, being fallible, might have made mistakes whereas Mohammed and Jesus did not. While I'm usually not big on "attacking the messenger", I think this is a case wherein you might be able to break through the faith defense mechanism by pointing out that those who transcribed, translated and interpreted the words are subject to human failings, if as those who gave the words originally are not. You aren't disputing Mohammed; you're disputing your local Shayk or Imam. The single messenger of the koran is mo'. Do you refuse to believe that muslims are quite proud that the koran is in its original language and they would refuse any attempt to re-write it? It is true that humans are capable of mistakes. That is part of the reason that other supporting documents become so instrumental. The koran is much better understood if read in light of hadith. There is already a study of ahadith in islamic tradition. Ancient and more modern scholars are in alarming unison concerning mo's violent example.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 14, 2007 16:27:13 GMT -5
MG - You are correct...the media does manipulate news with certain words, certain pictures and by under or over reporting events. So, do you still think that the media over-reports the number of jihadists sympathisers, such as did protest worldwide over cartoons? I am refering to under and over reporting in the scope of if they want something to look like a failure, Iraq for example...then they report meticulously on all the negative details, troop deaths for example and gloss over or not report at all when positives occur. The positives in the example of Iraq don't get anywhere near the same amont of face time by the media. My opinion is that it's on purpose. Your example of the mall shooter is a type of under reporting. They may know he is a muslim but they hold off on reporting it or it doesn't get the emphasis when it is finally revealed. If the media knew the guy was a member of a Christian hate group, then it would be plastered all over the news, there would be specials on the hate group, interviews of people in the hate group, people coming out of the wood work to condemn the hate group, etc...etc. Another example...remember when there was a black student or a black soldier in a dorm in the U.S. and somebody painted racial epithets on his door or something. Whew, Jesse and Al and co came out of the wood work, Clinton made a big deal about it. The media made a big deal out of it and it was in the news for days and there were race relation specials, etc.....then it was found out that the black guy was the one who actually spray painted the epithets...did the media give the same attention to that revelation in order to counter the falsehood. No. The reason being is that racial disharmony is something they want to over report versus racial harmony, which they under report. As far as the cartoon protests...your link did show significant numbers. It would be more correct for me to say that I think the media uses closeup shots of protests that don't have significant numbers that they want to portray. Cindy Sheehan texas ditch gatherings come to mind.
|
|