Is it racist to hate Radical islam?

[Barcs]

The whole Hitler comparison to Muslim fundamentalism doesn't make sense. Hitler was one man who was twisted in the head and commanded an army. There are a whole bunch of radical muslims out there, however and many do not even agree with each other. Hitler rounded up Jews and other non-aryans and exterminated them systematically. I can not see that as a legit comparison, regardless of who it offends.

More people die per year here in America, from car accidents than just about all terrorist attacks put together from the past 10 years. For Hitler to have achieved the numbers he did, he had to have been killing hundreds of people per minute.

[Rafiqi Nas]

My advice still stands. Try to make at least one Muslim friend, and really become their friend. If you want to see good Muslims, look for them. They are out there.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Charity, peace and tolerance. You ARE joking right? How can proclaiming to have the one and only true path to God produce tolerance? Clearly it hasn't. HISTORY HAS PROVEN THIS MANY TIMES OVER.

Islam doesn't claim to have the one and only true path. In fact, there have been thousands of prophets who brought messages which guide people to truth about God.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Why would anyone possibly need fear of Hell in order to regulate their behaviour. Why also would one need to have outdated stories of an inspired man in order to choose such characteristics as peace, love, kindness etc etc.?

I don't find the stories outdated. Stories of patience in adversity are distinctly human. They hit at a core of humanity which hasn't changed. There's a reason the Odyssey is still a great read. There's a reason I can pick up Seneca or Aristotle or the Bible or the Qur'an and find truth.

Oh, and fear of Hell isn't the proper regulation. Rather, it is attunement with truth that guides a person to proper action in Islam.

Originally Posted by Revolution

The point is this stuff is hailed as a religion and proclaimed to be "Gods word".

And the result? If you were to take a trip to the main "Islamic" countries you would probably find out soon enough.

I look forward to a future trip to the UAE, Morocco, and Egypt. I'd also like to visit Indonesia (Kuala Lampur!), Pakistan, and India. Quite a range of countries. I don't see what negative result you're so terrified of? You really think all Muslims are rabid? We don't bite. Honest.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Direct quotes from the Quran:

Oh boy. Here we go. For those interested in the Qur'an, this will be along the same lines as my post to AL in the other thread.

Originally Posted by Revolution

ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

Quite an inelegant partial translation, and one that loses the point of the passage. More accurate would be "And a proclamation from God and His Apostle unto all mankind on this day of the Greatest Pilgrimage: "God disavows all who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and [so does] His Apostle. Hence, if you repent [your sins], it shall be for your own good; if you urn away, then know that you can never elude God!" And unto those who are bent on denying the truth give thou the tiding of grievous chastisement." The next verse begins with "But excepted shall be". The context is not punishing any group, but ending treaties that had been made with other groups who had then broken the treaties.

Originally Posted by Revolution

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

This completely changes the verse. The context is telling Muslims to seek peace when possible, but to hold onto their beliefs even when fighting. The verse accurately rendered, "O Prophet! Inspire the believes to conquer all fear of death when fighting, [so that,] if there be twenty of you who are patient in adversity, they might overcome two hundred."

Originally Posted by Revolution

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

Context- Speaking of "those who went forth from their homelands full of self-conceit and a desire to be seen and praised by men" and therefore committed evil acts. These people, upon being told to correct their ways, refused, claiming that their ways were superior. The real quote, "Verily, the vilest creatures in the sight of God are those who are bent on denying the truth."

Originally Posted by Revolution

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Koran 9:29-30)

Very skewed. Speaks of groups who had betrayed treaties, and declares that they will not be allowed free movement into Muslim territory ("they shall not approach the Inviolable House of Worship") The next verse, 9:30 is "And the Jews say, "Ezra is God's son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God's son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following inspirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!"
(Razi and Zamakhshari note that "may God destroy him" was an idiomatic device meant to circumscribe anything extremely strange or horrifying).

Originally Posted by Revolution

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

Starts off fine, but goes wrong at the end. It is really, "And fight against them until there is no more oppression and religion belongs to God." Many commentators read it in conjunction with 22:40, "Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged . . . -those who have been drive from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, "Our Sustainer is God." For, if God had no enabled people to defend themselves against one another, [all] monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques - in [all of] which God's name is abundantly extolled - would surely have been destroyed [ere now]."

Originally Posted by Revolution

When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)

Ignores the context. This is about breaking treaties made with the mushrikin who broke a treaty by betraying their allies, a group of Muslims. 9:2-4 declares a four month waiting period, in which the mushrikin are informed that they should leave occupied lands and prepare for war. It also explicitly exempts any party that isn't trying to damage the Muslims from such a war. After those four months, they should go to war, "slay the mushrikin wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every conceivable place. Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render purifying dues, let them go their way: for behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace."

Originally Posted by Revolution

And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM (8:71)

This section is speaking of captives taken in battle, who are only to be held in the immediate aftermath of a war (8:67). The preceding verse is, "O Prophet, say unto the captives who are in your hands: "If God finds any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than all that have been taken from you, and will forgive you your sins: for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace."

Originally Posted by Revolution

FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)

Speaking again of the mushrikin who were waging a war against a Muslim group in violation of a treaty.

Originally Posted by Revolution

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

We've already covered most of 9:29 above. The only new part of the verse you've included is "until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection". This is a misquote. Closer would be "until they agree to pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled in war". A number of scholars agree on the interpretation here. In Islam, all people able to fight are instructed to defend their homeland from invasion or disaster. You may choose not to by paying a tax ("jizyah"). The verse is best understood as permitting other faiths into the community so long as they contribute equally to the defense and maintenance of the community.

Originally Posted by Revolution

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. (9:73)

This is pretty close. More accurate is, "... and be adamant with them. And [if they do not repent] their goal shall be hell - and how vile a journey's end!"

Originally Posted by Revolution

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:123)

Again, pretty close. More accurate would sub "unbelievers" with "deniers of truth" and close with "God is with those who are conscious of Him".

If anybody has questions or would like to discuss any of these rakat in more depth, let me know. It is a nice exercise.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

I don't think they would maintain their hate for us in the face of kindness and compassion and a reasonable foreign policy.

This may be true when viewed from the Blame America First point of view. In fact, no one has killed more muslim than other muslims in this world and the tribal, medieval barbarism, has engendered layers of hate that are like layers on an onion. Jews, Christians, Americans, dogs, everything is a target of hate because they/we fail to understand Islam allegedly. It is nice to think that kindness and compassion and a reasonable foreign policy will make it all go away but this overlooks the fact that many are living in a trance state induced by their religious fundamentalism. If they bomb the Twin Towers or a subway in London, we are supposed to ask first what we must have done wrong to deserve this. If a snake is found in a baby's crib, the first response it to think of what the baby must have done wrong. A woman is beaten to death in a soccer stadium for failing to wear the veil. First response is to think of how America must have caused them to do this. It forestalls the day when Islam might actually have some problems which it is responsible for rather than Jews and Americans.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

I disagree, my friend. When the extremist narrative is "they want to kill us" and you build schools and hospitals, the extremist looks rather unintelligent. When the extremist narrative is "they're trying to destroy our religion" and you speak about the beauty of Islam and show utmost respect for the Qur'an, the extremist looks like a liar.

Unintelligent liars don't do well recruiting.

Brutha,
Let me first say that I agree with TA.
But you are wrong, TA did say that extremist could look like unintelligent liars.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You think it's the same to call Bush an unintelligent liar which is something that a lot of people in America do as saying that Bush is like Hitler?

I said lets just agree to disagree in a respectful way but you then make the comment above. If you need more clarity I'll attempt one more time to give this to you. OK let me give this conversation some other perspective for you...

First of all, in a typical thread you criticize every word I say. Thats OK but then you misquote and take things out of context. Its either because you A. Want to win the argument or B. Don't understand what is being said or C. Have a different viewpoint or D. All of the above. Let me explain.

Brutha TA didn't call Bush an unintelligent liar, TA called the Extremists unintelligent liars. From my viewpoint I can clearly see that you continue to misread quotes and misunderstand the context of what people say. I've called you out for assigning quotes to me before than you thought I had said but then clearly I had not. You never even admitted you were wrong. So its clear you never concede in a conversation however I have conceded to you multiple times. Your goal IMO is to argue and win not to argue to understand.

Now as it relates to your comprehesion. I applaud you for being bilingual as I'm bilingual as well however your English reading skills are obviously not up to the level as to debate in the language it would seem. I cannot speak German anywhere near as well as you speak English so I do have respect. Also I can see so clearly that you are a super intelligent guy; that's clear but if you're only catching 95% of what's being said? This 5% is critical to our communicating sensitive subjects. This is clear by your recent misunderstanding of TA's quote for example. There are many other examples that I don't call you out on and I let pass because I don't want to be petty usually unless you push it as far as you've pushed this time.

Lets also talk about perspective. I'd like to add that since you're German the subject of Hilter is a taboo one whereas in other areas of the world its just another subject. As we both are aware, Germany has created specific laws about the speech or reference to Hitler in general. Hitler's name is not even mentioned in polite conversations in Germany. If I were posting on a German based blog I probably wouldn't have made the comparison even if it is accurate just out of culture sensitivity. We have different perspectives and that makes our exchanges interesting most of the time.

Now finally to your comment that you just misunderstood the quote on...
Someone is free to make a comparison of Bush to Hitler if they wish. Certainly Bush has taken agressive actions so I'm sure if he called for the death of every living and breathing jew on earth that it would help make the case as easily as I've made it for the Fundamentalists. You seem really hung up on the reference to Hitler.

Let me say that I will never use Hitler in any reference in this blog again out of respect to you. I had assumed that people would be outraged over Nasrallah's (leader of Hezbollah) that all Jews should be beheaded as the extremely offensive comment. I did not however, know that comparing these racist comments to Hitlers would in fact be what was offensive. Its ironic that I used it at a time I was trying to show that there exists double standards in judgement on speech. Its ironic that I actually proved this point more by the nature of our discussion.

Originally Posted by Barcs

The whole Hitler comparison to Muslim fundamentalism doesn't make sense. Hitler was one man who was twisted in the head and commanded an army. There are a whole bunch of radical muslims out there, however and many do not even agree with each other. Hitler rounded up Jews and other non-aryans and exterminated them systematically. I can not see that as a legit comparison, regardless of who it offends.

More people die per year here in America, from car accidents than just about all terrorist attacks put together from the past 10 years. For Hitler to have achieved the numbers he did, he had to have been killing hundreds of people per minute.

Oh I didn't know I was comparing Muslim Fundamentalism as a movement to Hitler's movement. Thats news to me.

I thought I was comparing the specific desire of killing all Jews and world domination.

It could be argued that I SHOULD not compare them to Hitler however it CANNOT be argued that these specific words and quotes I gave represent the same wishes as Hitlers.

In addition, we are not speaking about all Muslims but specifically Extremist Fundamentalist groups. By definition of them being a group it means that there are leaders and followers, teachers and students. Specifically I have given specific quotes by the leaders of Hezbollah for example.

Brutha debated with me that Iran's support of Hezbollah is no different than the US's support of Al Qaeda when they were fending off Russia. Brutha started defending Hezbollah as a legitimate orgazination that somehow deserved respect. I gave specific hatefilled quotes by Nesrallah and Ahmadinejad.

As people read my condemnation of these people's words they try to then assume that I am for US foreign policy. Somehow people think that because the US is wrong that therefore guys like Ahmadinejad must be right. I'll say it again, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

People argue and debate ideas and make assumptions without understanding what the other is saying. I do it to and none of us are perfect however since I'm not criticizing your words nor Bruthas then its both your responsibilities to understand my position to clearly criticize it. When you do critize it and I clarify my words and requote myself and what the context is you have to accept that not continue to argue it. Humans are complex because we use words to convey thoughts and so therefore it often takes multiple sentences to make a story around these thoughts. Some people argue or beat subjects to death because they are arguing to be right not to understand. If you argue to be right then its a loose-loose exchange.

[Brutha]

Brutha she didn't call Bush an unintelligent liar she called the Extremists unintelligent liars. From my viewpoint I can clearly see that you continue to misread quotes and misunderstand the context of what people say.

So the labels have a different strength when they are applied to Bush than they are applied to other people?

It makes a difference when you call Bush an unintelligent liar to calling him to be like Hitler but it doesn't make a difference to call extremist an unintelligent liar compared to calling them to be like Hitler?

A while ago someone on the british royality provoced people by wearing a swastika. You don't have the same reaction to a calling people liars or lying.

Brutha himself spoke of Hesbollah as being a an example of a legitimate group.

Legitimate doesn't mean good in the way I use it.
I think I have said that they are legitimated by Lebanon to wage war and that Lebanon is legitimated to defend itself from Israel.
Legitimation is no judgement in the way I use the term.
It a question of whether the international law (I especially spoke about war law) covers the things and not whether I find that those things are good.

In addition I generally don't judge things when I think that judging them is counterproductive.

Let me first say that I agree with TA.

His posts starts with him saying that he disagrees with you.
If you agree with disagreeing with your point, thats means that your first point was wrong, which is the thing I argue the whole time.
Do you really agree with him or did you overread the part about him attacking your point? Is that the reason why you added no arguments in support of that point?

that's clear but if you're only catching 80% of what's being said....?

I think that I do catch what being said, but you don't seem to catch when someone disagrees with you.

TA did say that extremist could look like unintelligent liars.

I think you got that quote right the third time.

Also I'd like to add that since you're German the subject of Hilter is a taboo one whereas in other areas of the world its just another subject.

On the internet you still have Godwins law that wasn't made up by Germans.
Some time ago when people where civilised on the internet before the long September people considered the Hitler argument taboo on the internet.
The problem is that extremly emotional charged (also for non-Germans), which often prevents good communication since setting things in relation is difficult with emotionally charged stuff.

[Brutha]

Brutha she didn't call Bush an unintelligent liar she called the Extremists unintelligent liars. From my viewpoint I can clearly see that you continue to misread quotes and misunderstand the context of what people say.

So the labels have a different strength when they are applied to Bush than they are applied to other people?

It makes a difference when you call Bush an unintelligent liar to calling him to be like Hitler but it doesn't make a difference to call extremist an unintelligent liar compared to calling them to be like Hitler?

A while ago someone on the british royality provoced people by wearing a swastika. You don't have the same reaction to a calling people liars or lying.

Brutha himself spoke of Hesbollah as being a an example of a legitimate group.

Legitimate doesn't mean good in the way I use it.
I think I have said that they are legitimated by Lebanon to wage war and that Lebanon is legitimated to defend itself from Israel.
Legitimation is no judgement in the way I use the term.
It a question of whether the international law (I especially spoke about war law) covers the things and not whether I find that those things are good.

In addition I generally don't judge things when I think that judging them is counterproductive.

Let me first say that I agree with TA.

His posts starts with him saying that he disagrees with you.
If you agree with disagreeing with your point, thats means that your first point was wrong, which is the thing I argue the whole time.
Do you really agree with him or did you overread the part about him attacking your point? Is that the reason why you added no arguments in support of that point?

that's clear but if you're only catching 80% of what's being said....?

I think that I do catch what being said, but you don't seem to catch when someone disagrees with you.

TA did say that extremist could look like unintelligent liars.

I think you got that quote right the third time.

Also I'd like to add that since you're German the subject of Hilter is a taboo one whereas in other areas of the world its just another subject.

On the internet you still have Godwins law that wasn't made up by Germans.
Some time ago when people where civilised (and I'm not saying that you aren't) on the internet before the Long September people considered the Hitler argument taboo on the internet.
The problem is that extremly emotional charged (also for non-Germans), which often prevents good communication since setting things in relation is difficult with emotionally charged stuff.

Brutha started defending Hezbollah as a legitimate orgazination that somehow deserved respect.

I don't think in terms of respect.

Brutha debated with me that Iran's support of Hezbollah is no different than the US's support of Al Qaeda when they were fending off Russia.

Do you think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda had different thoughts about jews than Hezbollah?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

So the labels have a different strength when they are applied to Bush than they are applied to other people?

It makes a difference when you call Bush an unintelligent liar to calling him to be like Hitler but it doesn't make a difference to call extremist an unintelligent liar compared to calling them to be like Hitler?

Brutha TA did not call Bush an unintelligent liar TA called the extremist unintelligent liars. Again you may want to go back and re-read the previous posts very carefully

Originally Posted by Brutha

His posts says that he disagrees with you.

TA said that they disagreed with "NOT" comparing. This is different than saying that its not fair to compare the exact quotes made by the Fundamentalists to Hitlers.

TA then makes comments which I digested and agree with. Because I agree with everything TA said after saying that they disagreed with me prove I'm wrong? Not really.

If someone says "I disagree with you" but then everything that comes out of their mouth you agree with then why shouldn't you say that you agree with them?

See this is your logic that you must disagree with someone even if what they say is accurate when they have previously disagreed with you.

Thats your logic not mine.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Do you think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda had different thoughts about jews than Hezbollah?

Its irrelevant to our conversation.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
Can we please move on.

Neither of us have crossed the line of civility however I personally feel badgered by you because every time I make a comment in ANY thread in World Affairs you seek me out and find a way to disagree or nit pick.

You are the moderator but to me this is trolling.

Yes it takes two to argue but you are on the offensive about my viewpoint and I am on the defensive.

Lets move on and debate another topic on another day. You can disagree with my viewpoints all you want but when I say lets agree to disagree why keep pushing?

[Barcs]

In addition, we are not speaking about all Muslims but specifically Extremist Fundamentalist groups. By definition of them being a group it means that there are leaders and followers, teachers and students. Specifically I have given specific quotes by the leaders of Hezbollah for example.

Brutha debated with me that Iran's support of Hezbollah is no different than the US's support of Al Qaeda when they were fending off Russia. Brutha started defending Hezbollah as a legitimate orgazination that somehow deserved respect. I gave specific hatefilled quotes by Nesrallah and Ahmadinejad.

As people read my condemnation of these people's words they try to then assume that I am for US foreign policy. Somehow people think that because the US is wrong that therefore guys like Ahmadinejad must be right. I'll say it again, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Ok, I read some of the research paper you posted, but cannot find what the quotes are allegedly sourced from and I saw an article that Jman posted, which was obvious biased (Jerusalem post). I think many of these are taken out of context, and are examples of quote mining. Why are all of the quotes partials? Are you able to provide me these quotes, and give legitmate sources of where they came from, so I can read what was said before and after? Many I've seen are hearsay and that's all. I tried to find the book or article they referenced in that term paper and couldn't find it at all.

If you check out Ahmadinejad's interview on Larry King Live, he clears up much of this. He said the holocaust existed, but the damage and death tolls were exagerated, and he wants an investigation. He does believe it happened. He also says that the problem is Zionism, not the jewish people, and believes that THEY need to be removed from power, not that Israel needs to be blown up. He supports the palestinians and believes that the Zionists can be removed without war. These are practically his exact words.

Ahmadinejad: 'American empire' nearing its end - CNN.com

Watch the videos as well. I definitely respect him, and I feel it's necessary for people to stand up to the disgusting propaganda that the USA constantly puts out against Iran.

BTW, this is nothing against you personally. I'm asking these questions so I can learn more about the actual truth of these subjects and quotes. I didn't mean for it to sound like that, I just do not agree with that Hitler comparison, even though it does take similar thinking in a few aspects.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Barcs

If you check out Ahmadinejad's interview on Larry King Live, he clears up much of this. He said the holocaust existed, but the damage and death tolls were exagerated, and he wants an investigation. He does believe it happened. He also says that the problem is Zionism, not the jewish people, and believes that THEY need to be removed from power, not that Israel needs to be blown up. He supports the palestinians and believes that the Zionists can be removed without war. These are practically his exact words.

Here's what he said in 2005:
Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president | World news | The Guardian

What is Zionism: Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, now he's not against the Jewish people themselves; he's just against Zionism, the existence of Isreal as a state and country? So, no Isreal on the map, right? He doesn't want the people destroyed, just the state of Isreal gone? That changes everything.

[Brutha]

Brutha TA did not call Bush an unintelligent liar TA called the extremist unintelligent liars. Again you may want to go back and re-read the previous posts very carefully

I didn't said that TA called Bush an unintelligent liar but made a comparision. To find out whether calling people unintelligent liars is as offensive as calling them to be "like Hitler", I looked at a different example.
Your disagreement suggested that you don't think that the terms are similarly offensive when applied to Bush.

Its irrelevant to our conversation.

I have said in the other thread that Hezbollah are similar to the Taliban and Al Quaeda at that time. If you want to make an argument to challenge that statement you have to find issues where Hezbollah is worse.

TA then makes comments which I digested and agree with. Because I agree with everything TA said after saying that they disagreed with me prove I'm wrong? Not really.

After TA disagreed TA layed out the explanation for the disagreement using the the kind of language I used before (speaking of narratives and used extremists as label) to lay out an altanative to doing things like comparing all Muslim Fundamentalists to Hitler.

Lets move on and debate another topic on another day. You can disagree with my viewpoints all you want but when I say lets agree to disagree why keep pushing?

You pushed as well at the same time you wanted to agree to disagree by saying:

If you feel that calling a group "Unintelligent Liars" when speaking of their religous views is not comparable to saying their views of Jews are "Like Hitler's" then I think its your perception that should be questioned.

I you want we can now end to argue.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by JMan

Here's what he said in 2005:
Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president | World news | The Guardian

What is Zionism: Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, now he's not against the Jewish people themselves; he's just against Zionism, the existence of Isreal as a state and country? So, no Isreal on the map, right? He doesn't want the people destroyed, just the state of Isreal gone? That changes everything.

Did you watch that video from Larry King? He's saying wiped off the map, politically, not forcefully. Classic misinterpretation. He believes that the Zionists in power right now are not Jewish. He believes they hide under that cloak, and that they are corrupt and cause most of the violence in that region. For the most part, he's right about that. He believes that the Jews and Palestinians can live together in peace, but Israel should not be a country. Is that really as bad as everyone makes it out to be? It's not any worse than Bush calling Iran part of the axis of evil.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I you want we can now end to argue.

Brutha, with all do respect we do have different opinions and interpretations on this subject. I would like to discontinue this subject as I feel that we're both not being constructive at this point or making new points.

I am however, open to debating any other topics with you in the future. I enjoy most of your points and let me also add that I respect you for debating it out with me without pulling rank as moderator. You were willing to go at it based upon your position alone. I love that.

So OK we disagree about this, I've seen many other of your points on this site that I agree with when others don't. Lets go forward in a positive manner from here.

I'm looking forward to future discussion with you on new topics.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Brutha,
Let me first say that I agree with TA.
But you are wrong, TA did say that extremist could look like unintelligent liars.

It is nice to factor heavily into an argument. It makes one feel loved and listened to.

I think we've mostly reached consensus that narrative matters, and that the specific narrative used can increase power. Actions and comments that play into that narrative can increase the power of the one wielding the narrative.

My reason for using the phrase "unintelligent liars" was not to say that Muslim extremists are, but rather to point out what effect the proper response to an empowering narrative can have. Personally, many extremists seem to me like smart, capable opponents convinced of their point of view. While we may not be morally blameworthy in making broad statements about extremists, it is by no means the correct move. By making hateful statements, we empower their narrative. The force we use feeds the problem. We must recognize the power of actions and comments directed toward this problem. We must own our words.

The problem is simply too serious to ignore our effect on it.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Did you watch that video from Larry King? He's saying wiped off the map, politically, not forcefully. Classic misinterpretation. He believes that the Zionists in power right now are not Jewish. He believes they hide under that cloak, and that they are corrupt and cause most of the violence in that region. For the most part, he's right about that. He believes that the Jews and Palestinians can live together in peace, but Israel should not be a country. Is that really as bad as everyone makes it out to be? It's not any worse than Bush calling Iran part of the axis of evil.

So, he wants Israel off the map.

[Barcs]

I want Israel off the map too. That doesn't mean it's going to happen or that I'm going to raise an army to take them down, even if I had the resources. It is my firm belief that peace cannot be achieved though violence. My point was that everybody uses that line to mean "Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel", when that's not what he wants at all. He's explained it countless times. I don't think he's an angel or anything, but should be allowed to speak his mind without being labeled part of the "axis of evil" for one misinterpreted statement.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I want Israel off the map too. That doesn't mean it's going to happen or that I'm going to raise an army to take them down, even if I had the resources. It is my firm belief that peace cannot be achieved though violence. My point was that everybody uses that line to mean "Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel", when that's not what he wants at all. He's explained it countless times. I don't think he's an angel or anything, but should be allowed to speak his mind without being labeled part of the "axis of evil" for one misinterpreted statement.

Why do you want Isreal off the map?

[Barcs]

Why's it matter? I don't think they should have been put there in the first place. It was unfair to the Palestinians. If they were instead given land in Europe, the middle east would be far more peaceful today. The creation of Isreal is pretty much what started islamic terrorism in the first place. No Israel = no 9/11, IMO. I also believe that the past is the past and we can't go back, so instead of dwelling on it, we should look to fix the problem, and the only way this will happen is if Israel concedes a little bit to Palestine in a peace agreement. The way it is set up now is appalling. Israel pretty much controls everything about Palestine (jobs, power, supplies, etc). I believe that the creation of a new country is the only way to go. Name it Israetine or something. Merge them together and get the Zionists out of power, and make it a democracy where both Israelis and Palestians have equal rights and government representation. Then and only then will there be peace.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Why's it matter? I don't think they should have been put there in the first place. It was unfair to the Palestinians. If they were instead given land in Europe, the middle east would be far more peaceful today. The creation of Isreal is pretty much what started islamic terrorism in the first place. No Israel = no 9/11, IMO. I also believe that the past is the past and we can't go back, so instead of dwelling on it, we should look to fix the problem, and the only way this will happen is if Israel concedes a little bit to Palestine in a peace agreement. The way it is set up now is appalling. Israel pretty much controls everything about Palestine (jobs, power, supplies, etc). I believe that the creation of a new country is the only way to go. Name it Israetine or something. Merge them together and get the Zionists out of power, and make it a democracy where both Israelis and Palestians have equal rights and government representation. Then and only then will there be peace.

Israel is a creation of the United Nations. Many things that are being discussed now, such as making Jeursalem an international city, were part of the original charter but were never implemented. This is because the UN walks away or backs down from about any responsibilities that it has. Enforcement of sanctions against Saddam being a more recent example but the list is endless.

[Gazzali]

I am in the islamic faith and i know for sure i am not an extremist

[Call me Boges]

The muslim world has declared war on the west. if thats what they want then thats what they will get.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

The muslim world has declared war on the west. if thats what they want then thats what they will get.

Of course I'm sure you mean the radical muslim world.

[Call me Boges]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Of course I'm sure you mean the radical muslim world.

muslims seem to have a with us or against us attitude and its the type of thought pattern that I will inherit as well.

the radical muslim world is supported by regular muslim citizens. they are sympathizers. osama bin laden is a huge muslim icon, even to the average muslim in the street he is seen as a robin hood type guy.

[Plato]

I know somebody who's a muslim. He's a real ass. Case closed!

No, seriously I thought Brutha's points about the different types of muslims was great.

[JMan]

And the Prez Sez: Backgrounder: The President's Quotes on Islam

BACKGROUNDER: THE PRESIDENT'S QUOTES ON ISLAM (excerpts)

In the President’s Words: Respecting Islam

The United States is a nation dedicated to religious tolerance and freedom, and President Bush has acted to ensure that the world's Muslims know that America appreciates and celebrates the traditions of Islam.


"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."
Remarks by President George W. Bush in a statement to reporters during a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
The Oval Office, Washington, DC
November 13, 2002


"Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion."
Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan
Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
October 11, 2002


"All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith -- face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate."
President George W. Bush Holds Roundtable with Arab and Muslim-American Leaders
Afghanistan Embassy, Washington, D.C.
September 10, 2002


"If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government. I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations."
President George W. Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership
The Rose Garden, Washington, D.C.
June 24, 2002


"When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes."
Remarks by the President George W. Bush at the 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002


"This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims."
President George W. Bush Addresses the Nation
World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia
November 8, 2001


"The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them."

President George W. Bush's Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
United States Capitol, Washington, D.C.
September 20, 2001


"I've made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It's a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people."
Remarks by President George W. Bush and President Megawati of Indonesia
The Oval Office, Washington, D.C.
September 19, 2001


"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
September 17, 2001



....

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

The muslim world has declared war on the west. if thats what they want then thats what they will get.

Define "Muslim world". Define "west". Define "war". Give some substance to the claim, please.

[Call me Boges]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Define "Muslim world". Define "west". Define "war". Give some substance to the claim, please.

I used fairly broad terms on purpose because I dont feel the need to convince anyone here or go into details. Theres tons of information on the internet. I drew my own conclusions and so should everyone else.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Call me Boges

I used fairly broad terms on purpose because I dont feel the need to convince anyone here or go into details. Theres tons of information on the internet. I drew my own conclusions and so should everyone else.

As a member of the "Muslim world" and a "westerner", I find the idea of such a "war" absurd. I agree that people should do research and make informed decisions.

[Call me Boges]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

As a member of the "Muslim world" and a "westerner", I find the idea of such a "war" absurd. I agree that people should do research and make informed decisions.

You may find the idea absurd but ask the victims of islamic terrorism what they think about it. Or maybe the average everyday folk of europe who have high muslim populations (france for one).