main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Well, sorry if I seemed a bit snippy. This is the biggest foreign policy crisis since the Abottabad fallout and the first big foreign policy crisis of Obama's term(the Bin Laden call was gutsy as all hell, but it was just that: a call. The world is watching here, and Obama needs to flex his diplomatic and intellectual muscle) and handling it sensibly is going to require some sort of articulation of the contrast between Western and Islamic values, which is bound to offend some. I don't see why bringing up a years-old incident of the lowest dregs of American society passing nonsensical legislation is all that relevant right now.

    I posted this already (perhaps in response to you? Sorry, I don't remember). I don't expect nor want Obama to try and start de-converting Muslims en masse. But the facts are that our two value systems are clashing right now, and innocent American lives are being lost. Not only that, the newly-elected President of our former second-biggest Arab ally is giving little indication at all he really gives a damn. How Obama reacts to this moment is going to shape American foreign policy significantly for at least the near-future. He was elected President for moments like this. I don't think it's wrong to have high expectations.

    EDIT: It seems David Frum has articulated similar points much better than me


    Link
     
  2. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I'm not accusing you of wishing to "de-convert Muslims."

    I'm saying such a speech could look very arrogant, and likely significantly backfire. I also wonder if a speech like that would have any benefits, or change any minds. Most Muslims would probably just see it as an insult, as being treated like inferiors. They don't want to be talked down to.

    Why would you want a speech that basically says "we are different, our cultures are clashing, we are right, submit to our culture"???

    Giving a divisive and arrogant speech like that, or any speech at all, is not an adequate or proper response to the loss of innocent American life. And Obama wasn't elected to give speeches.





    Also, the Oklahoma/Sharia thing has been happening this year and last year, and was a big part of the GOP primaries, brought up by people like Gingrich and Cain and Bachmann but the others too.
     
    Manisphere and Valairy Scot like this.
  3. aPPmaSTer

    aPPmaSTer Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Ok so this video that was obviously made in someone's basement, by people who didn't even know they were taking part in an anti-Muslim film... first got a dubbing over the controversial lines in English, then got a dubbing over the whole thing in Arabic, and started to be spread around the Muslim world.

    As a Muslim myself I can honestly say that what was done was ingenious, heck Darth Sidious couldn't have thought of something that good, and it got the reaction that they were hoping for. A movie saying "Islam is violent" followed by violent attacks by Muslims around the world causing the deaths and injuries of Americans including the Libyan ambassador, as well as their own countrymen. So hats off to them, well played. The video itself, as dumb as it is, probably wouldn't have got more than a couple hundred views on youtube had the people not reacted the way they did.

    I can, however understand their reaction and outrage. Hotheads in 3rd world countries usually don't have the restraint that hotheads here at home do, and I'm not surprised at all that they staged a protest. What did shock me though is that it resulted in deaths of innocents who had nothing to do with the movie, and this is something that I feel really bad about, and I give my full support to all those Libyans and others who went out to the streets and made a protest against the reactions of those "hotheads", as I would fully support them being brought to justice. They need to learn once and for all, if they are Muslims, that you can't attack words with killing. Here is a good speech from a well-known and respected Muslim speaker on how Muslims should react to this:



    In general, I think a lot was learned this time around, unfortunately it cost people's lives. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see Libyans showing solidarity to the American victims' families, and helping people see a bit of the real Islam. Don't know if Fox would broadcast that though... [face_worried] Hopefully next time this happens, and I'm expecting it to happen again, people will react better and not give these dumb movies the free advertisement that they definitely don't deserve.

    And lastly, I totally condemn this movie, and hope that God guides those who were responsible in making it towards... reality.
     
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  4. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    So what would you have President Obama do? Nothing, just wait for it all to blow over? Let the Islamic world watch the mighty United States helpless in the face of lynch-mobs who have killed at least 14 United States citizens? I'm as disgusted by the Republicans' incessant whining about Obama's "apology tour", but you're living in Ron Paul land if you don't think that would greatly embolden other Islamic terrorist groups worldwide.

    As I said earlier, terrorism works because terrorism works. We don't have to let it.
     
  5. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Thanks for posting, aPPmaSTer. Very nice to have the opinion of a Muslim who just came back from living in Egypt here :)

    And yeah, I posted several images of the counter-protest in the US election thread. It's always nice to see the light in the darkness.

    It's on the last few pages, but it seems the guy responsible for the video is bank fraud con-artist who was born in Egypt, who goes by several aliases, and isn't Israeli at all. It also seems like the protests in Libya may have been a cover for (or completely unrelated to) the highly coordinated terrorist attack by Al Qaeda that killed the Ambassador, perhaps based from the city of Derna in Libya.

    Anyways, I especially wanted to point out this part you said:


    My questions: have you heard how people even became aware of this video? And were they misinformed, did they think this was a big Hollywood movie or something? I heard reports that Egyptian and Libyan TV were playing clips of it non-stop, saying the United States government endorsed it, almost as if the TV networks there were trying to incite people to violence. Have you heard at all about how this thing blew up?

    Also, what in the video do you think is the most infuriating to the protesters? Besides the whole thing, which is pretty vulgar and hateful, though I've only been able to watch a few short clips of it (that was enough). Like, if it was just a video in which an actor played the prophet Mohammed, nothing more than that, do you think the backlash would have been anywhere near as bad? Or is it a particular insult towards the prophet that's really infuriating the protestors?

    I've also got to say, the response from the Libyan government has been soothing. The response from the Egyptian government, and others, have really let me down.




    Of course not do nothing. Haven't you heard? He's already sent 200 marines to secure embassies in North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan/Pakistan. They're flying surveillance drones to capture the suspects in Libya, bring them to justice, and to prevent similar attacks in the future. I bet the Special Forces are strategizing in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanstan as we speak. Battleships have moed to the Libyan coast too.

    I don't know why you think an "Islam vs the West" speech by Obama is what anyone needs right now.
     
    aPPmaSTer likes this.
  6. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    I'm not asking for a speech that declares a systematic campaign against Islam worldwide, nor do I want any such campaign to take place; I just want an unequivocal defense of free speech. Enough of this "We are committed to free speech but we also condemn this anti-religious rhetoric". The two concepts cannot be decoupled. How about something like

    "Good evening.

    When I was elected President four years ago, I made it a priority to heal America's fractured relationship with the Muslim world. Throughout my Administration, I have earnestly sought to do so, and wish to make it clear that I remain committed to doing so in the future. But tonight, after the carnage and bloodshed the world has watched for the past few days, I must be equally clear about something else: the United States' historical commitment to free speech. The United States government makes no apologies for the words of private citizens that have perhaps offended peoples of faiths' feelings. Should anyone attack our embassies or harm our citizens, the United States will decisively respond with appropriate force....[insert flowery coda]"

    Was that pretentious or what? I think I need to wash the slime off my body.
     
  7. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I still think a speech like that could potentially have a very bad effect. Sends out the wrong tone. Sounds like youre talking down to them.

    Also, haven't you heard the saying "I disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it?"

    But anyways, here's my comments on this hypthetical speech:

    "Good evening. When I was elected President four years ago, I made it a priority to heal America's fractured relationship with the Muslim world. Throughout my Administration, I have earnestly sought to do so (examples), and wish to make it clear that I remain committed to doing so in the future. But Always bad to use "but" in this kind of situation, make it look those these two things are in conflict, which is the feeling I've been getting from your posts too. A simple "and" should suffice. tonight, after the carnage and bloodshed the world has watched for the past few days, I must be equally clear about something else: the United States' historical commitment to free speech. The United States government makes no apologies for the words of private citizens They've condemned the speech, not apologized for it. There's a difference. They're not claiming responsibility for it, or saying that it should have been illegal to make. And it has always been fine for the federal government to do this. Like condemning racism, sexism, other hate speech, etc. that have perhaps not perhaps, definitely offended peoples of faiths' feelings. Should anyone attack our embassies or harm our citizens, the United States will decisively respond with appropriate force....[insert flowery coda]" Any hypothetical speech like this should explain how free speech does not equal government endorsement, explain what exactly free speech is, why it's important, and what the proper response to hate speech in a free society is. And are were even sure this guy was a citizen? Also, the protestors are really protesting because they believe it's a US conspiracy to pubish these videos. It also should be recognized that they are only a minority, not the entire Muslim World, which the beginning of this speech seems to imply.
     
  8. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Is there any way to craft a speech addressing a lynch-mob stirred to a riot because you insulted their venerated 7th century polygamist pedophile warrior that isn't patronizing? It'd take a better wordsmith than me.

    Er...yes; that's been the entire point of my posts. I want Obama to articulate that principle embedded in a speech about the specific geopolitics of the region. Why are you brandishing this quote at me? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just genuinely flummoxed at what point you're trying to make)

    I didn't mean for the "speech" to be taken that seriously but thanks anyway. I appreciate a good critique. A couple points:

    1.And it has always been fine for the federal government to do this. Like condemning racism, sexism, other hate speech, etc, Yes, but what if a mob started destroying the hate-speech offender's property and threatening bodily harm? That has committed a crime and will be prosecuted for it. Obviously an imperfect analogy since we're not talking about other United States citizens here, but you see what I'm getting at.

    2.not perhaps, definitely Understood in this context, but the "speech" was meant to be a seminal statement of forward policy, so I think the ambiguity is justified.

    Anyway, the "speech" is just something I wrote as a stream of consciousness and didn't spend much serious thought on. Let us not quibble over the details.


    And can I again point out how rather amazing cries for "religious tolerance" are from a population that distributes and reads The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the most pernicious and vile documents of all time, as prosaic history? (History written with lightning, you might say)
     
  9. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    And this tone and generalization is the exact thing I'm talking about.

    And, as I've been saying, there's evidence that a group affiliated with Al Qaeda organized the attack that killed the ambassador. Not necessarily the protesters who are responsible for the killings in Benghazi (though they have crossed the line in Egypt and Yemen by trespassing and vandalizing embassy property).


    That's not how your recent posts in this thread have been coming across.

    The tone from your posts has been "those Muslims need a stern talking to, Obama needs a speech to show them how they are wrong and we are right. You're with us or you're against us." That's the vibe I've been getting, and the beginning of your latest post isn't helping.



    Of course. Not one person is arguing that. Obama and Clinton and the rest have already made speeches on this, and have already taken actions to bring justice. What more do you want?

    Obama and Clinton have already given speeches on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of course condeming the violence. etc. I'm really not sure what more you're asking of them. Just lok at the speech Clinton gave yesterday, a summary of her and Obama's recent speeches:

    http://news.yahoo.com/secretary-cli...middle-east-034054319--abc-news-politics.html

    Secretary Clinton delivered a powerful and personal speech about religion at an Eid ul-Fitr reception, marking the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. The speech, at times, was a direct response to the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East, and the deaths of four diplomats at the hands of militants in Libya.

    In her remarks, Clinton repeated much of what she's said in the last two days. Namely that the Benghazi attack was carried out by a "small and savage group," and that the United States completely rejects what she called the "inflammable and despicable" anti-Muslim film circulating the Internet. However, Clinton pointed out all religions have faced insults and denigration, but that's no justification for violence. The response to such insults is what separates people of true faith from those who would use religion as an excuse to commit violent acts, she said.

    "When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence," said Clinton. "The same goes for all faiths, including Islam."

    She spoke movingly about her own personal beliefs as a way of re-enforcing her point.

    "I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries," said Clinton."Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable."

    She asked the crowd to work towards building a world where if one person commits a violent religious act, millions of people will stand up and condemn it

    "We can pledge that whenever one person speaks out in ignorance and bigotry, ten voices will answer," Clinton said forcefully. "They will answer resoundingly against the offense and the insult; answering ignorance with enlightenment; answering hatred with understanding; answering darkness with light."

    The secretary urged the audience not to be discouraged by the hatred and violence that exists, but instead resolve to do something tangible to promote religious tolerance in their own communities.

    "In times like these, it can be easy to despair that some differences are irreconcilable, some mountains too steep to climb; we will therefore never reach the level of understanding and peacefulness that we seek, and which I believe the great religions of the world call us to pursue," she reflected. "But that's not what I believe, and I don't think it's what you believe… Part of what makes our country so special is we keep trying. We keep working. We keep investing in our future," she said.

    This year's annual Eid event honored three young Muslim-Americans who are part of the State Department's Generation Change program. The initiative, launched by Clinton two years ago, supports young Muslims to develop positive organizations and movements around the world.

    Clinton acknowledged given deaths of the diplomats killed in Libya this week, the event had a more somber tone than in years past. But she also highlighted the outpouring of support the United States has received from the Muslim world. She thanked the Libyan Ambassador, Ali Suleiman Aujali, who gave a heartfelt tribute U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens ,whom he called his dear friend, killed in Benghazi on Tuesday.

    "I must tell you, Madam Secretary, and tell the American people, that Chris is a hero," said Aujali. "He loves Benghazi, he loves the people, he talks to them, he eats with them, and he [was] committed - and unfortunately lost his life because of this commitment."

    You're kind of generalizing/condemning an entire population again. Did you miss the post by a Muslim here on the boads, on this very page as our conversation.
     
  10. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    But, we are right. We certainly shouldn't be too condescending about it, but blasphemy and heresy have to be tolerated in society or else religious freedom doesn't exist.

    Also, Egyptians seem to want to fashion a mildly Islamist government in the mold of Turkey. Now I don't know what sort of blasphemy laws Turkey might have, but I can't imagine that insulting Mohammad is a capital offense there...maybe a fine or jail time or twenty lashes, but death? Even if the appropriate penalty for insulting Mohammad in a Muslim democracy is twenty lashes, well their jurisdiction ends at their border. They probably wouldn't appreciate it if we demanded that people who burn the American flag in their country should be arrested and sent to jail.
     
  11. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I don't know that we need "real" story at all. But I want to make clear that I never said it was unfair to expect him to condemn the violence. I explicitly noted he should have. My point challenged those who criticized the content of the statement he made, rather than its omissions. But Karzai didn't really make any errors of commission in his remarks.

    No, but I did find you just a post ago going on about how Karzai needs to learn about "American values." There are two problems here. First, it seems questionable to assert an "American value" that you would admit an number of Americans and important American cultural figures don't hold to any better than Karzai. What then, are we teaching, and who are we to teach it? Secondly, look at what happened. A man guilty of serial bank fraud makes a movie that has no purpose except insulting Muslims, and doesn't really advocate for an alternative religious view at all. This isn't much of a "freedom of religion" issue. Especially when you have yet to explain why condemning something that is stupid and mean-spirited somehow infringes upon people's right to express themselves. The important measure there is whether or not the guy is able to make/show his film, not whether government officials give him standing ovations for having made it. Being called a bigot, an idiot, or an untalented hack is not a violation of one's rights. The maker of this film trailer deserves to be labeled as all three. I welcome Karzai, Morsi, and anyone else that should like to join in and do so.
     
  12. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    In an incident like this, there really is no principled or clearly delineated line between "Al Qaeda" and the general Muslim population. As attested to in Islamic primary sources, Mohammed was a polygamist, a pedophile, and ruthless warrior. The Qu'ran[33:21] that the life of Mohammed represents an "excellent standard of conduct" for all Muslims to follow. Given the incessantly vitriolic attitude the Qu'ran as a whole for "infidels", it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to deconstruct what is going on here.


    You think one admirable post by one Muslim on TF.N is an adequate rejoinder to the point I made about the Protocols, and I'm the one generalizing? I'm sorry, but that is just beyond absurd.

    I think you're being extraordinarily obtuse here. I'm not looking to get into an academic debate about what "American values" are or whether they really are "American" or "Western" or whatever you might call them. Again at the risk of sounding incredibly presumptuous, I'm trying to imagine what's going on in the Oval Office right now. Somehow I doubt it's something like this

    Obama: Well, guys, I need your input here
    Clinton: Well, over a dozen Americans have been killed in ruthless attacks on our embassy in Cairo, and the American people are very upset. In addition, the newly-elected President of our historical second-biggest ally in the Arab has indicated he's really not all that troubled by this behavior. President Karzai has displayed a similar indifference
    Panetta: Mr. President, this is not the first time this sort of incident has occurred, and it probably won't be the last. I think it may be time to draw a proverbial line in the sand here. The American people by and large do not accept the "prophethood" of Muhammed nor care if he is insulted.
    Obama: Good points, but ugh....it's just....what about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Weren't they pretty nasty, too?
    Panetta and Clinton: ..............
    Obama: I mean, we're sitting here talking about how the Presidents of Egypt and Afghanistan seem pretty indifferent to religious lunacy, but those guys encouraged behavior among evangelicals that was pretty bad, too
    Clinton: Er, um, yes, but, well, Mr. President, I think the situation here has some serious geopolitical and strategic considerations that we need to address, especially regarding the "prophethood" of Mohammed
    Obama: Okay, okay, you're right, but I don't want to say anything too bad about Islam. I mean, remember those bigots in Oklahoma trying to ban sharia law?! Ugh. I don't want to say anything that might legitimize part of their message
    Panetta: Mr. President, are you being serious right now?
    Obama: Of course, why wouldn't I be?

    Panetta(whispering to Clinton): Start gathering up cabinet members while I go draft the letter of incapacity invoking the 25th Amendment)

    ::Both stand up::

    Clinton Mr. President, thank you for the outstanding leadership and keen insight you have provided. We'll be in touch as the crisis escalates.

    EDIT: And it seems I've woken up to a world in which now private businesses are being rioted and destroyed. But hey, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
     
  13. Valairy Scot

    Valairy Scot Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 16, 2005
    That movie was clearly intended to be inflammatory and IMHO I feel it was practically the same as yelling "Fire" in a theater - I can't see any sane person being so willing to incite violence (and no, I don't think violence was/is a proper response to inflammatory speech). I'm sure the filmmaker is sitting at home all smug and satisfied at what he deliberately stirred up.
     
  14. Manisphere

    Manisphere Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2007
    I don't know. I'm betting said "filmmaker" is crapping his pants.
     
  15. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Crapping in his pants? Probably more like crying "victim". He poked the angry bear and now he's running to the rest of us for protection. If it weren't for the First Amendment, I'd have a good mind to just feed him to the bear.
     
  16. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Any criticism of Islam would stir up violence.
     
  17. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    BREAKING NEWS: Nobody murdered because of vile and pornographic anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu image.

    I'm actually extremely relieved that President Obama is President right now. If it were Bush or McCain, we'd have the liberal hysteria, "But Bush is bombing their countries and killing their children! Of course they're mad!". But since we've got the Benevolent Liberal Barack Obama who has more or less embraced or enhanced all of smirking, unsophisticated, cowboy Bush's anti-terror policies, liberals can't play that card without betraying their President. Nor should they, in any case. The crux of this problem is the contrast between Islam and the West, and it's time to confront it head-on, or at least with a hell of a lot more conviction than we have thus far.

    Again, I loathed Bush's simplistic "good vs. evil" dualism, but, while he may have drastically and ignorantly oversimplified things, I'm afraid the conflict truly is zero-sum: Either you think Islam is the Guidance for Mankind and by Divine mandate must be the organizing principle for all of the world's governance, or you think that the ideals expressed in documents like the Declaration of Independence should be the foundation for governance.

    And, yes, there is certainly a lot to be said about how well American society has practiced (and still practices) those ideals. But all of the successful civil rights campaigns in American history have appealed to those ideals; Were they just ad hoc words on a page devised by 18th century white men as a pretext for Revolution, or do they express something deeper that we are not living up to?

    And yes, the viewpoints of thinking Islam is the Guidance for All Mankind and thinking that it must usurp existing secular governments can theoretically be decoupled, hence the need to empower "moderate" Muslims. My point is that, gleaning from their ecquivocation, Morsi and Karzai are clearly not "moderate" Muslims. They're committed to upholding the dignity of Islam. The United States isn't and never will be.
     
  18. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    How is upholding the dignity of Islam fundamentally incompatible with a free society? If such religious commitment should be disqualifying, why have you yet to express any problem with Mitt Romney announcing he will "never take God off our currency [. . .] or out of my heart"? That formulation pretty clearly ties his personal convictions to state policy in the same way that you are claiming is anti-thetical to "Western" values. I don't think you have strong insight into how people practice and understand their respective faiths.
     
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  19. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Whoa, I have to tell you about this insane dream I had last night. I dreamed that every news outlet--on television and the internet--was relentlessly airing footage from the Middle East of crowds of thousands of Muslims raiding embassies, killing American diplomats and civilians, and destroying private property--all while seriously injuring their fellow countrymen in the process--because their favorite prophet had been insulted. Thank goodness this was only a dream.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to poring over the copy of the Protocols that my sister brought back from her trip to Egypt several years ago. This is really quite frightening stuff. If you were previously unaware that a cabal of Jews has been orchestrating world events in a conspiracy of dazzling insidiousness and complexity, I really recommend you pick up a copy of this book.

    Seriously, if you're just going to keep posting absolutely absurd non-sequiturs--especially absurd considering how intelligent you are--I'm not going to waste any more time with this.

    EDIT: Okay, I lied. Got to add some dialogue to my scene from earlier

    ::As Clinton and Paentta exit room::

    Obama: Oh, and another thing, did you hear Mitt Romney promise the other day that he "will never take God of our currency? Ugh!

    : Panetta and Clinton's eyes widen in sudden ephiphany::

    Panetta: Oh yeah, I guess you are right about that! Truth be told, Mr. President, I had just told Hilary to organize the cabinet so we could remove you from office, but the point you just made is so insightful and relevant I feel so ashamed that I'm even admitting to this to your face. Lead the way, Mr. President!
     
  20. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    In a free society people do not get killed for making a youtube video.
     
    Lowbacca_1977 and Condition2SQ like this.
  21. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Stop making this elementary point so succinctly, Vivec; You're bringing this discussion down too many notches.
     
  22. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    What coherent point are you making? Embassies were attacked. We know this. There are volatile elements in each of these countries that respond to political developments and ideological statements with violence. This is also well known.

    But on with what evidence do you conclude that these people's actions somehow represent a majority sentiment (or even a significant minority) in their countries? How have you decided that these problems are intrinsic to the religion of Islam itself, rather than tied to any of dozens of other sociological factors that might explain their response? Similarly, how do you comfortably attribute the anti-Semitism in the region solely to the most popular religion there, rather than the obvious present day geo-political tensions that emerged from a pretty botched Middle East re-mapping that took place at the end of the World Wars?

    The positions you are taking are not bold or courageous. They are just blaming a religion you don't like for everything that is wrong with a society you are not a part of.

    Vivec: The question is how to prevent such fits of violence in the future. I wouldn't think you subscribed to Condition2's "Islam is the root of all evil [in the Middle East]" style of argument.
     
  23. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    J-dub, I don't see how either of my posts could be construed to "Islam is the root of all evil [In the Middle East]."
     
  24. Condition2SQ

    Condition2SQ Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 5, 2012
    I love this charge. You know, the Qu'ran and Hadith are not obscure documents that only a very select few of individuals have access to or possess the requisite intelligence to process. I'm fairly sure the nearest local public library to your home as several copies of the Qu'ran and at least one volume of Hadith. If not, your local Barnes & Noble surely has a few available, and if not even then, then the internet is a fairly useful resource for things of this kind.

    In any case, I have copies of both sitting right here next to me. Reading them out loud, this sort of violence hardly seems to be a manifest "distortion" of the teachings contained therein. Why should we expect them to be in any case? They are, after all, 7th century documents, a period not exactly known for learned discourses on civil society.

    As for the geopolitics, I'm not going to sit here and write a term paper for you. Yes, I know the remnants of the former Ottoman Empire were clumsily demarcated among England and France. Yes, I am aware of the tension caused by the creation of Israel post World War II (and I note here that the alliance of Palestine and the Nazis and the subsequent dissemination of Nazi propaganda throughout the region that is to this day embraced by many might be a tad relevant). Yes, I am aware of Pan-Arabism in the 60s, the Six-Day War and subsequent occupation, and the subsequent geopolitical resentments. Problem is, the lynch-mobs and terrorists tell us, ad nauseum what they believe and why they are killing is, and "geopolitics" is rarely part of the lexicon, apart from the ubiquitous ravings about a Zionist plot for global conquest(Hmmm, might the Protocols have something to do with this? Nahh).

    I raise again the case of Jared Lee Loughner. How quickly liberals seized on the "depraved right-winger inspired by vehement Tea Party invective!" storyline. Sarah Palin even had to go on national television to address this, even though she had literally nothing whatsoever to do with it. Islamic terrorists tell us, ad nauseum, why they do what they do, and liberals instead apply a different standard; that's not really why they did it. It can't be. But what reason do we have not to not take them at their word? If they are distorting this "peaceful" religion so much, why aren't Muslim leaders condemning them in unequivocal, theological, terms? Given the perniciousness of Islamic terrorism in the world today, why aren't the vast, vast majority of peaceful Muslims not producing volumes and volumes of Qu'ranic exegesis that make it manifestly clear that terrorism is not sanctioned by the Qu'ran? Read the Qu'ran, and it is manifestly clear why; the Qu'ran is a work of vitriolic religious triumphalism. The powers of human language are not adequate to derive any kind of peaceful exegesis from it.

    EDIT: Here's a former CAIR official making basically the same point.

    http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3372.htm
     
  25. Lord_Hydronium

    Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    I just Googled "muslim leaders condemning terrorism". First hit: http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

    Third hit: http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm

    News item, seventh hit, if lists don't do it for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/5111092.stm

    You also might have seen some of these pictures recently:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    You're not looking very hard, are you.