How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[syd syside]

 

Which is why Obama, having a muslim father is viewed worse in the middle east than George Bush was (will get those polls in a moment). Muslims see him as weak because he is a traitor against the word of god.

 

And congratulations, you've actually made my (admittedly injured) head spin.

 

 

The White House's request that Google review the anti-Islamic film the "Innocence of Muslims" to determine if it violated YouTube's terms and services is worrisome for several reasons. First, is its implications for free speech. The Obama administration wasn't asking for an outright ban of the video but its intentions were pretty clear. We hope you'll remove this. It's a subtle and insidious infringement on the First Amendment when government uses its influence and authority to encourage private media to self-censore.

 

More broadly though-and this gets at what's worrisome about curbing speech-is that the wave of anti-American protests sweeping through the Arab World is about a lot more than one offensive video by a few lily-livered individuals. So far though, the Obama administration seems to pretty much being say just that. It's all too often we see government's do this. Pick a simple scapegoat for the problem rather than engage in serious reflection and/or defence of its own policies. The "Innocence of Muslims" may have been the spark for these demonstration's, but it wouldn't have spread so rapidly if there wasn't already a lot of kindling in place.

 

Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president.

 

Republicans have a chance to offer a thoughtful critique of the Obama foreign policy but instead seem intent to keep a safe distance from logic or reality. Team Romney's response is the tiresome platitudes of neoconservative American exceptionalism: We just need to more clearly assert our values As if the tensions in the Middle East are a symptom of the Muslim world's John Bolton nostalgia.

 

I'm in no way suggesting that the US is the bad guy while the Arab world is absolved of all responsibility. There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith. And there's no justification for the violence we've seen the last couple of days.

 

http://uselectionwatch12.com/blogs/Papering-over-the-real-issues

[Guest Iain C]

Gee, you don't think that the deteriorating worldwide perception of the US might be due to the ongoing wars and indiscriminate, murderous drone campaign over Pakistan and Afghanistan that you, Obama and other supposed "liberals" continue to enthusiastically support?

 

Nah, it's cause Obama's dad was a Muslim.

 

You are beyond parody, and if I didn't know how genuinely thick you are I'd swear your entire posting career was one long troll.

[syd syside]

The punishment for apostasy from Islam is a controversial topic for Muslims living in the West and for ex-Muslims everywhere. That’s because Islam teaches that apostates are to be killed.

 

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

[Guest Iain C]

Listen buddy. I've got my own problems with Islam, believe me. On Tuesday night I had sex during the call to prayer, and the next day I ended up in hospital. Coincidence? I don't think so. And today, when I visited a mosque, those uncivilised bastards actually made me take my SHOES off before I went inside. That's an obvious rejection of western rationalism IMHO, I mean everyone needs shoes.

 

But here's how I propose we deal with the problem - you leave watmm and never come back. Deal?

[Guest Iain C]

 

 

The punishment for apostasy from Islam is a controversial topic for Muslims living in the West and for ex-Muslims everywhere. Thats because Islam teaches that apostates are to be killed.

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

Lol no seriously, don't edit out the part where you say "Obama is doing a bad job of standing up for our values" presumably because he's not bombing ENOUGH Muslims.

[syd syside]

 

 

 

The punishment for apostasy from Islam is a controversial topic for Muslims living in the West and for ex-Muslims everywhere. Thats because Islam teaches that apostates are to be killed.

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm

Lol no seriously, don't edit out the part where you say "Obama is doing a bad job of standing up for our values" presumably because he's not bombing ENOUGH Muslims.

 

the edit deleted my whole post. I wanted to include it but didn't bother re-typing

 

He shouldn't attempt to censor our freedom of speech... Religion isn't above ridicule.

 

No where have I said that Obama should be bombing more Muslims. This is about most religions being a destructive force and Islam being specifically extreme and has been for centuries and since its conception.

 

The problem is those who characterize people who criticize Islam as racists or Islamophobes.

[eugene]

just read the article, greenwald is obviously wrong in thinking that the islamic threat is not different from any other religious based threat. i obviously don't know what would that "uniqueness" entail but there's no doubt that the hypothetical war conduct of similarly capable states with different state religions would be very different.

[SR4]

Am I defending Christianity? We can look at their history just as critically. However in the present Islam is more extreme by note of that poll, the fact that the Koran is considered the word of god (while the other religions rely more on the books being interpretations [John wrote etc], therefore less literal) and the big difference is that it is against Islam to leave the faith.

 

Which is why Obama, having a muslim father is viewed worse in the middle east than George Bush was (will get those polls in a moment). Muslims see him as weak because he is a traitor against the word of god.

 

No where do these 'new atheists' or myself claim 1.6 billion people are extreme Islamist, but that there is a sizable amount of extremist compared to other religions. That and the fact that Islam seems to encourage martyr cults more than the others.

 

If criticizing religion is racist, then I think you ought to realize how athiests or other non-Islamic believers feel being born in an Islamic country with these kind of extreme views. At least in Europe and the West there is more secularism, which could explain why the Ottoman empire was scientifically advance prior to the introduction of Allah. Since 1,400 years ago when this religion started and took hold on that region there has been a decline in scientific advancement and critical thinking. Which is why Islam is of the greatest religious evil today and should be discouraged / criticized.

 

 

the issue, at least from my perspective, is that you could replace Islam with numerous other religions and receive the same result. It is geopolitics that determines the core of extremism; religion makes it easier for such extremism to be clouded in the excuses of the divine. I agree with Harris on this premise, but again, he delves into a rather dangerous absolutism.

 

Find statistics of suicide bombers in 1950s Afghanistan; you'd probably reach a number relatively close to those same types of actions undertaken by murder/suicide hostage situations over in the Christianized West. It's because its a secularized community, sure,maybe. But it was still a majority Islamic nation. It also had a thriving economy and a relatively strong and stable government apparatus. Look into some of the Buddhist "extremist" groups in Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh. I guarantee there is more to it than "religious friction".

 

I don't disagree with religion being a motivator for violence, but my point is that we really really need to stop looking at the Middle East/hot spots solely through the lens of Islam and its many variations- in doing so we are in effect justifying and accepting such a weak-handed excuse for why these areas have become as violent as they are.

[SR4]

 

Put Christians in a similar Geo-political situation and see how long it takes them to suicide bomb/form dominionist governments on a regular basis.

don't lessen the power of culture, jews didn't commit suicidal attacks on nazis in desperate situations during the holocaust for example (im not pitting jews against muslims or something, i just dont have a better example off top of my head)

 

it doesn't have to be directed towards any specific "other", it can be internal as well:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism#Zealotry_in_the_1st_century

 

 

After the creation of Israel

According to a study by the political scientist Noemi Gal-Or, since the creation of Israel, Jewish terrorism has been assessed as "far less significant" than Arab terrorism.^[8] It lasted a few years during the 1950s and was directed at internal Israel-Jewish targets, not at the Israeli Arab population.^[8] There was then a long intermission until the 1980s, when the Jewish Underground was exposed.^[8]

It has been suggested that a striking similarity between the Jewish groups, and jihad networks in Western democracies is their alienation and isolation from the values of the majority, mainstream culture, which they view as an existential threat to their own community. Other similarities between these groups are that their terrorist ideology is not exclusively religious, as it attempts to achieve political, territorial and nationalistic goals as well, e.g. the disruption of the Camp David accords. However, the newer of these Jewish groups have tended to emphasise religious motives for their actions at the expense of secular ones. In the case of Jewish terrorism most networks consist of religious Zionists and ultra-orthodox Jews living in isolated, homogenous communities.^[9]

The following groups have been considered religious terrorist organizations in Israel:

• Gush Emunim Underground (1979–84): formed by members of the Israeli political movement Gush Emunim.^[10] This group is most well known for two actions. Firstly, for bomb attacks on the mayors of West Bank cities on June 2, 1980, and secondly, an abandoned plot to blow up the Temple Mount mosques. The Israeli Judge Zvi Cohen, heading the sentencing panel at the group’s trial, stated that they had three motives, ‘not necessarily shared by all the defendants. The first motive, at the heart of the Temple Mount conspiracy, is religious.’^[11]

• Keshet (Kvutza Shelo Titpasher) (1981–1989): A Tel Aviv anti-Zionist haredi group focused on bombing property without loss of life.^[12][13]:101 Yigal Marcus, Tel Aviv District Police commander, said that he considered the group a gang of criminals, not a terrorist group.^[14]

• The "Bat Ayin Underground" or Bat Ayin group. In 2002, four people from Bat Ayin and Hebron were arrested outside of Abu Tor School, a Palestinian girls' school in East Jerusalem, with a trailer filled with explosives. Three of the men were convicted for the attempted bombing.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

• Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) was a radical religious Jewish underground organisation which operated in Israel between 1950 and 1953, against the widespread trend of secularisation in the country. The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state.^[22]

• The Kingdom of Israel group (Hebrew: מלכות ישראל, Malchut Yisrael), or Tzrifin Underground, were active in Israel in the 1950s. The group carried out attacks on the diplomatic facilities of the USSR and Czechoslovakia and occasionally shot at Jordanian troops stationed along the border in Jerusalem. Members of the group were caught trying to bomb the Israeli Ministry of Education in May 1953, have been described as acting because of the secularisation of Jewish North African immigrants which they saw as 'a direct assault on the religious Jews' way of life and as an existential threat to the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel.'^[23]

[syd syside]

missed the edit:

 

Lain C, you are characterizing my critiques against Islam (Islam spreads intolerance and ignorance) as meaningless/racist etc, therefore negating those criticisms and justifying Islam as morally above my ideals. This is backwards ideology and is more fascist than anything I have said. Just because you have a Muslim girlfriend and know Muslims doesn't mean you aren't spreading fascist ideals (ie censoring or negating critiques / character assisination). There is no logical argument one can make to suggest because I hate Islam, I hate people. My understanding of history is that religion was introduced to control people and to keep them in fear/ignorant. Now I think it is fine for someone to believe what they want, but what is going on in the middle east is not secular, it is totalitarian and fascist. If you can think about it from an individuals perspective, a gay women atheist, then maybe you can understand why I am critical of states/people who suggest leaving Islam should be punished... or that women are less equal... or etc... All religions are known for this kind of bullshit, some societies have moved beyond them because of ideals like freedom of religion in the United States. The problem with Islam is the nature of how it spells out its law and rejects dissent and skepticism. Religion like this is a cancer of the mind in that it discourages creative/critical thinking while also forcing one into it (indoctrination) and punishes them if they want to leave.

 

Kind of amazing that my criticism of a religion makes you want me to leave. Well you aren't gonna get your wish. No matter how much you pray.

[YO303]

 

Am I defending Christianity? We can look at their history just as critically. However in the present Islam is more extreme by note of that poll, the fact that the Koran is considered the word of god (while the other religions rely more on the books being interpretations [John wrote etc], therefore less literal) and the big difference is that it is against Islam to leave the faith.

 

Which is why Obama, having a muslim father is viewed worse in the middle east than George Bush was (will get those polls in a moment). Muslims see him as weak because he is a traitor against the word of god.

 

No where do these 'new atheists' or myself claim 1.6 billion people are extreme Islamist, but that there is a sizable amount of extremist compared to other religions. That and the fact that Islam seems to encourage martyr cults more than the others.

 

If criticizing religion is racist, then I think you ought to realize how athiests or other non-Islamic believers feel being born in an Islamic country with these kind of extreme views. At least in Europe and the West there is more secularism, which could explain why the Ottoman empire was scientifically advance prior to the introduction of Allah. Since 1,400 years ago when this religion started and took hold on that region there has been a decline in scientific advancement and critical thinking. Which is why Islam is of the greatest religious evil today and should be discouraged / criticized.

 

 

the issue, at least from my perspective, is that you could replace Islam with numerous other religions and receive the same result. It is geopolitics that determines the core of extremism; religion makes it easier for such extremism to be clouded in the excuses of the divine. I agree with Harris on this premise, but again, he delves into a rather dangerous absolutism.

 

Find statistics of suicide bombers in 1950s Afghanistan; you'd probably reach a number relatively close to those same types of actions undertaken by murder/suicide hostage situations over in the Christianized West. It's because its a secularized community, sure,maybe. But it was still a majority Islamic nation. It also had a thriving economy and a relatively strong and stable government apparatus. Look into some of the Buddhist "extremist" groups in Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh. I guarantee there is more to it than "religious friction".

 

I don't disagree with religion being a motivator for violence, but my point is that we really really need to stop looking at the Middle East/hot spots solely through the lens of Islam and its many variations- in doing so we are in effect justifying and accepting such a weak-handed excuse for why these areas have become as violent as they are.

 

This is a great point, how much of that hatred towards the west has to do with the west bombing the shit out of the middle east (probably a lot).

 

Still that doesn't change human rights violations being committed in islamic countries.

[SR4]

compson:

 

You might be interested in researching the "Golden Age" of Islamic societies; they were surprisingly moderate and multiculturally/religiously tolerant (not universally, but is any form of tolerance ever universal?). Check out Chris Lowney's A Vanished World for more insight on Spain during and after the Reconquista.

 

 

Also research Wahhabist movements. It was an radical, dogmatic form of Islam that became increasingly popular in Arabia and spread from the late 18th Century onwards. Why was it so successful in spreading? Because it was under the banner of cultural traditionalism, something desperately needed to fight back the imperialists that were carving up the ancient Islamic world. One such imperial power was the Ottoman Empire, itself a Muslim nation.

 

Again, there's far more to it than simply religion itself; religion only helps to stoke the fire.

[eugene]

 

 

Put Christians in a similar Geo-political situation and see how long it takes them to suicide bomb/form dominionist governments on a regular basis.

don't lessen the power of culture, jews didn't commit suicidal attacks on nazis in desperate situations during the holocaust for example (im not pitting jews against muslims or something, i just dont have a better example off top of my head)

 

it doesn't have to be directed towards any specific "other", it can be internal as well:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism#Zealotry_in_the_1st_century

 

>

After the creation of Israel

According to a study by the political scientist Noemi Gal-Or, since the creation of Israel, Jewish terrorism has been assessed as "far less significant" than Arab terrorism.^[8] It lasted a few years during the 1950s and was directed at internal Israel-Jewish targets, not at the Israeli Arab population.^[8] There was then a long intermission until the 1980s, when the Jewish Underground was exposed.^[8]

It has been suggested that a striking similarity between the Jewish groups, and jihad networks in Western democracies is their alienation and isolation from the values of the majority, mainstream culture, which they view as an existential threat to their own community. Other similarities between these groups are that their terrorist ideology is not exclusively religious, as it attempts to achieve political, territorial and nationalistic goals as well, e.g. the disruption of the Camp David accords. However, the newer of these Jewish groups have tended to emphasise religious motives for their actions at the expense of secular ones. In the case of Jewish terrorism most networks consist of religious Zionists and ultra-orthodox Jews living in isolated, homogenous communities.^[9]

The following groups have been considered religious terrorist organizations in Israel:

• Gush Emunim Underground (1979–84): formed by members of the Israeli political movement Gush Emunim.^[10] This group is most well known for two actions. Firstly, for bomb attacks on the mayors of West Bank cities on June 2, 1980, and secondly, an abandoned plot to blow up the Temple Mount mosques. The Israeli Judge Zvi Cohen, heading the sentencing panel at the group’s trial, stated that they had three motives, ‘not necessarily shared by all the defendants. The first motive, at the heart of the Temple Mount conspiracy, is religious.’^[11]

• Keshet (Kvutza Shelo Titpasher) (1981–1989): A Tel Aviv anti-Zionist haredi group focused on bombing property without loss of life.^[12][13]:101 Yigal Marcus, Tel Aviv District Police commander, said that he considered the group a gang of criminals, not a terrorist group.^[14]

• The "Bat Ayin Underground" or Bat Ayin group. In 2002, four people from Bat Ayin and Hebron were arrested outside of Abu Tor School, a Palestinian girls' school in East Jerusalem, with a trailer filled with explosives. Three of the men were convicted for the attempted bombing.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

• Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) was a radical religious Jewish underground organisation which operated in Israel between 1950 and 1953, against the widespread trend of secularisation in the country. The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state.^[22]

• The Kingdom of Israel group (Hebrew: מלכות ישראל, Malchut Yisrael), or Tzrifin Underground, were active in Israel in the 1950s. The group carried out attacks on the diplomatic facilities of the USSR and Czechoslovakia and occasionally shot at Jordanian troops stationed along the border in Jerusalem. Members of the group were caught trying to bomb the Israeli Ministry of Education in May 1953, have been described as acting because of the secularisation of Jewish North African immigrants which they saw as 'a direct assault on the religious Jews' way of life and as an existential threat to the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel.'^[23]

 

that's not the point, I was talking specifically suicide bombings. martyrdom ethos simply doesn't exist in judaism as far as I know. the point is that jewish extremism/terrorism/war conduct/defense will be vastly different from islamic one. the problem is measuring this difference, which is actually more destructive/dangerous when having the same means.

[HoA]

The Koran is the "Gospel of Unity"(Sura 42:13-17). The words Hadith and Talmud both basically mean "the Traditions of the fathers", which both Christ and Mohammed codemn (Matthew 15v9; Sura 43:21-23).
Sura 32:23. We did indeed aforetime give the Book (Torah) to Moses: be then NOT IN DOUBT of its (The Torah) reaching (THEE): and We made it a Guide to the Children of Israel.

[SR4]

Christians have had plenty of suicidal martyrs in history, they are on equal terms with Islam? or no?

 

 

Let's take this rationale one step further.

 

How many self proclaimed anarchists, communists, fascists committed murder/suicide or planned terrorism? Do we have proof that those that did not die in these events absolutely rejected the idea of sacrificing themselves?

 

Maybe even then you are still arguing the numbers game; fair enough. But if we go the route of "they are doing it more than anyone else", it is because of geopolitical instability first and foremost. You didn't have suicide bombers or terrorist cells infiltrating every which way in the 1800s, hell even through most of the early 20th Century, unless they were waged against political enemies (imperialists); hence, religious justification for "jihad".

 

It continues to blow my mind that Islam has always been considered this monolithic dictatorship over thought and reason from its inception, but everyone else is seemingly exempt from this, because the last time they engaged in such acts was a century or so ago. Is there like a timer on radical religious tolerance? I don't understand this disconnect.

[Guest Iain C]

Also worth mentioning that the modern tactic of suicide bombing was largely developed and certainly popularised by the Tamil Tigers, a nationalist group with a secular manifesto and an atheist leadership.

[goDel]

I admit having not read the entire wall of text or the discussions referred to, but before that I'm actually already surprised by a number of things.

 

First thing which got me wondering was the context that from " the corner of Islam" voices arise of them being treated unjustly (eg. Racism). If true, Whether that racism comes from the atheists corner, or another religious corner shouldn't really matter, I guess, but it somehow does here. That's a bit silly, imo. What I would also expect in a context like this, is certain types of behavior. Eg. A hypothetical Islamists are not allowed in atheists parks, kind of thing which goes further than "we dont like your ideas". I cant recall examples where islamists are being treated more poorly than other religionists, by atheists. And as far as I can tell, religious fanatics are being disrespected regardless of their specific belief. I don't believe islamists are being treated more poorly than people with other religions, so imo this basically negates the entire discussion.

 

Other piece of irony is Islam itself. Currently theres quite an amount of conflicts within the islam world. Obvious examples are syria and israeli-palestina conflict. In short a shiit-sunnit and a judeo- islamist conflict. In other words, imo you could say that when it comes to racisms, the islamic community has to look at itself first, imo. There are actual wars being fought with a racial/ religious context. So any bit of atheist racism, if true, is pretty much insignificant to things that are happening in, say, syria. Ergo, another reason to negate the discussion, imo.

 

And finally, going further on the previous point, the odd thing is the lack of open criticism within the islamic community itself. Even with the current turmoil in the middle east, eg the struggles for democracy in egypt, tunesia & iran, there isnt open criticism towards islamism itself. That is, apart from the racial criticism like between the sunnii and the shiits. Perhaps more specific, theres a lack of selfcriticism, if you ask me. There's an abundance of criticism towards other tribes, so to speak. But within the tribe, criticism seems pretty much invisible. Could be me. So, imo, the irony is that islam is pretty much guilty on all accounts of racism.

 

In short, i cant believe this discussion is actually taking place. And I'm wondering why it is.

 

This is not in the direction of awe, but rather in the direction towards the people mentioned in the wall of text in the OP. It's news that islamists put their aims at atheists, as far as i can tell. Before, atheists were almost regarded equal to dogs. Or in other words, worse than people with other religions. At least, that was one of the lessons from people who have been to countries like afghanistan and pakistan. If you're being asked what your religion is, you're better off saying you're a christian, than saying you're an atheist. So, i'm wondering whats the deal here. Islamists openly going into a discussion with atheists, is an actual novelty as far as i can tell. What is going on?

[ganus]

to be honest, I haven't read most of the article yet, but just in response to people talking about islam being bad; it's none of your business. unless you were raised islamic and are from northern africa or the middle east, you have no right. It's their cultural baggage regardless of what you might think of it, and no one can make them change their minds about it but themselves. acting like it's our job to "fix" the middle east is racist, fascist, and all around imperialistic.

besides, think about it, is religious extremism in the form of islam really more harmful than the US's worship of capitalism?

[eugene]

Christians have had plenty of suicidal martyrs in history, they are on equal terms with Islam? or no?

 

 

Let's take this rationale one step further.

 

How many self proclaimed anarchists, communists, fascists committed murder/suicide or planned terrorism? Do we have proof that those that did not die in these events absolutely rejected the idea of sacrificing themselves?

 

Maybe even then you are still arguing the numbers game; fair enough. But if we go the route of "they are doing it more than anyone else", it is because of geopolitical instability first and foremost. You didn't have suicide bombers or terrorist cells infiltrating every which way in the 1800s, hell even through most of the early 20th Century, unless they were waged against political enemies (imperialists); hence, religious justification for "jihad".

 

It continues to blow my mind that Islam has always been considered this monolithic dictatorship over thought and reason from its inception, but everyone else is seemingly exempt from this, because the last time they engaged in such acts was a century or so ago. Is there like a timer on radical religious tolerance? I don't understand this disconnect.

i'm pulling this towards very basic anthropology, the idea is that some occurrence, lets take your geopolitical instability for example, will be interpreted and reacted to differently in different cultures. do you agree with this premise ?

[eugene]

Also worth mentioning that the modern tactic of suicide bombing was largely developed and certainly popularised by the Tamil Tigers, a nationalist group with a secular manifesto and an atheist leadership.

nationalism is often referred to as secular religion..

[syd syside]

compson:

 

You might be interested in researching the "Golden Age" of Islamic societies; they were surprisingly moderate and multiculturally/religiously tolerant (not universally, but is any form of tolerance ever universal?). Check out Chris Lowney's A Vanished World for more insight on Spain during and after the Reconquista.

 

 

Also research Wahhabist movements. It was an radical, dogmatic form of Islam that became increasingly popular in Arabia and spread from the late 18th Century onwards. Why was it so successful in spreading? Because it was under the banner of cultural traditionalism, something desperately needed to fight back the imperialists that were carving up the ancient Islamic world. One such imperial power was the Ottoman Empire, itself a Muslim nation.

 

Again, there's far more to it than simply religion itself; religion only helps to stoke the fire.

 

Thanks I will check em out hopefully. This topic is of a lot of interest to me because I think its something that a lot of Westerners don't fully appreciate as a problem but due to globalization and military technology we need to be peacefully critical of those who represent ideals that go against our own. Ideals being freedom of speech, equality, freedom of religion. These things advance and progress society in my opinion.

 

Sure the West has tremendous amounts of corruption and the elite rig the game in their favor... it's not a perfect system or even close, capitalism. But I do think if we can make more scientific/techno progress we will be able to alleviate the problems of energy/poverty/etc around the world, at least sooner than if take the anti-western approach and simply deconstruct everything down to the West being savage imperialists who want nothing but to conquer the world. It's not like the US occupied Japan after WW2 and took its land.

 

I know people hate the war in Iraq because of the lies and incompetency involved with it, but I don't view our actions as purely in the interests of our own anymore (like I once did on regards to Iraq). There is a lot not understood about the trajectory a place like Iraq would have taken if the civil wars would have broken out under Saddam's rule. People in the West often look at places like Darfur as an example of when intervention would be good, yet they fail to see the benefit in prevention of genocide, as might have been the case in Iraq. Though definitely naive thinking on the US part that it would be easy to stabilize the region after taking Saddam out.

 

Then we can examine North Korea and see how letting that go has perhaps led to more harm and human suffering than had we dealt with it originally. Especially when you look at where things might be headed...

 

So my stance on the US is that we have tremendous flaws and corruption that should be dealt with, but the people who blanket our foreign policy as purely in our own interests are making a claim that I think is hard to prove. I don't claim to really know enough about the history of Iraq/Afghanistan to know if we made the right call or not, but I don't think its possible to suggest the Taliban and Hussein aren't fascist and destructive forces (not to be praised). How we deal with leaders/religions/institutions that are "evil" ... I'm really not sure. But it's clearly not as simple as suggesting we just stay out of other peoples business. Especially in this nuclear age.

[solarion]

hey I'm not going to read the article

 

just thought you should know

[SR4]

 

Christians have had plenty of suicidal martyrs in history, they are on equal terms with Islam? or no?

 

 

Let's take this rationale one step further.

 

How many self proclaimed anarchists, communists, fascists committed murder/suicide or planned terrorism? Do we have proof that those that did not die in these events absolutely rejected the idea of sacrificing themselves?

 

Maybe even then you are still arguing the numbers game; fair enough. But if we go the route of "they are doing it more than anyone else", it is because of geopolitical instability first and foremost. You didn't have suicide bombers or terrorist cells infiltrating every which way in the 1800s, hell even through most of the early 20th Century, unless they were waged against political enemies (imperialists); hence, religious justification for "jihad".

 

It continues to blow my mind that Islam has always been considered this monolithic dictatorship over thought and reason from its inception, but everyone else is seemingly exempt from this, because the last time they engaged in such acts was a century or so ago. Is there like a timer on radical religious tolerance? I don't understand this disconnect.

i'm pulling this towards very basic anthropology, the idea is that some occurrence, lets take your geopolitical instability for example, will be interpreted and reacted to differently in different cultures. do you agree with this premise ?

 

 

uhh... sure. just like any individual will interpret and react differently to daily stimuli. how this implicates islam as the "most" violent or extremist religion is beyond me.

[syd syside]

 

 

Christians have had plenty of suicidal martyrs in history, they are on equal terms with Islam? or no?

 

 

Let's take this rationale one step further.

 

How many self proclaimed anarchists, communists, fascists committed murder/suicide or planned terrorism? Do we have proof that those that did not die in these events absolutely rejected the idea of sacrificing themselves?

 

Maybe even then you are still arguing the numbers game; fair enough. But if we go the route of "they are doing it more than anyone else", it is because of geopolitical instability first and foremost. You didn't have suicide bombers or terrorist cells infiltrating every which way in the 1800s, hell even through most of the early 20th Century, unless they were waged against political enemies (imperialists); hence, religious justification for "jihad".

 

It continues to blow my mind that Islam has always been considered this monolithic dictatorship over thought and reason from its inception, but everyone else is seemingly exempt from this, because the last time they engaged in such acts was a century or so ago. Is there like a timer on radical religious tolerance? I don't understand this disconnect.

i'm pulling this towards very basic anthropology, the idea is that some occurrence, lets take your geopolitical instability for example, will be interpreted and reacted to differently in different cultures. do you agree with this premise ?

 

 

uhh... sure. just like any individual will interpret and react differently to daily stimuli. how this implicates islam as the "most" violent or extremist religion is beyond me.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57570633/christians-threatened-by-syrian-war-flee-to-lebanon/

 

There have been Christians in Syria as long as there have been Christians. Now they are caught up in a civil war increasingly dominated by Islamic militants.

..

 

Many Christians are fearful of what might happen if the rebels win. They worry they could face the same kind of religious persecution they've seen in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

 

"You'd see militiamen come in front of churches and making screams, and you know, shooting in the air and such to scare people off," Faddoul said.

 

There are no official statistics on how many Christians have left Syria since the civil war began. Aphram says he hopes to start a new life in the West.

 

"If things keep going the way they are in Syria, there will be no Christians left there," he said.

 

This ancient community may be the next casualty of the civil war.

 

If you can show the equivalency of christian / non-muslim/islamic persecution / genocide happening in the name of another religion, then you have a point (present day). Otherwise I do really think one can declare Islam as being used to justify the most amount of violence.

[SR4]

here's the catch: you can't prove an equivalency any more than you can prove a difference in something this immense that goes through thousands of different filters.

 

 

Seriously, its like saying drawing is more violent than painting. This is going to turn into a semantic thing.

 

 

I feel like at this point I'll just yield and say a face-to-face conversation would work much better than through text. There's too much being lost through interference.