Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

badidea · Jul 28, 2004, 06:24 AM

Since so many of you guys here think that muslim = towelhead = terrorist, I would like to know how you would answer this question from an I.Q. test:

If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, then some Wicks are definitely Snicks. The statement is:
[ ] True
[ ] False
[ ] Neither

badidea · Jul 28, 2004, 09:29 AM

Oh come on guys, this question isn't too difficult for you, or is it??

dcolton · Jul 28, 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by badidea:
Oh come on guys, this question isn't too difficult for you, or is it??

It's just that this thread is a bad idea.

badidea · Jul 28, 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
It's just that this thread is a bad idea.

At least you know the answer and understood what would happen if you answered it correctly!

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by badidea:
Since so many of you guys here think that muslim = towelhead = terrorist, I would like to know how you would answer this question from an I.Q. test:

If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, then some Wicks are definitely Snicks. The statement is:
[ ] True
[ ] False
[ ] Neither

Will be interesting to see what they answer or if they'll just ignore it!

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 10:21 AM

Of course the categorical syllogism is invalid. But it also doesn't map onto what you're trying to criticize, i.e., generalization. "That some Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists" is closer to the point you're making.

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 10:22 AM

Of course the categorical syllogism is invalid. But it also doesn't map onto what you're trying to criticize, i.e., generalization. "That some Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists" is closer to the point you're making.

Spliffdaddy · 12:21 PM

The answer is (D): "Some Muslims are terrorists".

Spliffdaddy · 12:20 PM

.

Spliffdaddy · 12:20 PM

.

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 10:24 AM

Of course the categorical syllogism is invalid. But it also doesn't map onto what you're trying to criticize, i.e., generalization. "That some Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists" is closer to the point you're making.

Spliffdaddy · 12:20 PM

.

Spliffdaddy · 12:21 PM

.

Spliffdaddy · 12:22 PM

.

lil'babykitten · Jul 28, 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The answer is (D): "Some Muslims are terrorists".

OKAY!! I got that the first time you posted it!!!

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 11:15 AM

WE GET IT SPLIFFDADDY!!!!!!

Spliffdaddy · Jul 28, 2004, 11:25 AM

holy cow. wtf?

For a member with 5,000 posts and zero double-posts - it was long overdue, I reckon.

The entire forum crashed. Either because of what I did, or in spite of it.

Anyways, the answer is (D)

badidea · 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
holy cow. wtf?

For a member with 5,000 posts and zero double-posts - it was long overdue, I reckon.

The entire forum crashed. Either because of what I did, or in spite of it.

Anyways, the answer is (D)

There isn't even A, B or C, how can there be a D??

The correct answer would have been that terrorist has nothing to do with Muslim!
Some terrorist do claim to be Muslim though...but that's the terrorist's own (false/or B if you want) opinion!

(edited: opion to opinion)

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by badidea:

Some terrorist do claim to be Muslim though...but that's the terrorist's own (false/or B if you want) opion!

Strange that so many muslims support these "fake" muslims. Or are these muslims "fake muslims" also ?

You are guilty of "Spin".

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Strange that so many muslims support these "fake" muslims. Or are these muslims "fake muslims" also ?

You are guilty of "Spin".

How many are "many"? How big a percentage of Muslims are these "many"?

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
How many are "many"? How big a percentage of Muslims are these "many"?

About 1/3 to 1/2.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
About 1/3 to 1/2.

care to back that up or did you pull those numbers out of your

?

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
care to back that up or did you pull those numbers out of your ?

I've already backed it up in other posts.

Hint: Muslim polls - Osama - Al - Qaeda - etc.

In certain places the number is greater than 50%.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
I've already backed it up in other posts.

Hint: Muslim polls - Osama - Al - Qaeda - etc.

In certain places the number is greater than 50%.

Care to show any of those posts or just give links that back your claim up.

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Care to show any of those posts or just give links that back your claim up.

According to the data collected from the 521 Muslim American individuals polled, only 34 percent agreed that bin Laden was behind the attacks. Twenty-two percent believed some other organization was responsible, while the remaining 44 percent either refused to answer the question or replied that they were not sure of the answer.
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-so0181.html

Sixty-five percent of respondents in Pakistan had a favorable rating of Osama bin Laden. A majority also in Jordan at 55 percent.
http://www.btlonline.org/btlqabice040204.html

But 70% of those in Jordan, 66% in Morocco and a 46% plurality in Pakistan say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justified. Nearly one-third in Turkey agreed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...nal-poll_x.htm

Where Osama is a rock star

British Muslims back terror attacks on USA

Many in Islamic world doubts arabs behind 9-11

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 02:23 PM

Only one of those links showed what I asked you for and what you claimed. But instead of 1/3 to 2/3 the number was 1/10. Quite a difference.

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Only one of those links showed what I asked you for and what you claimed. But instead of 1/3 to 2/3 the number was 1/10. Quite a difference.

65% in Pakistan. Gosh, many "fake" muslims there, lol. Pakistan can not claim to be a muslim country anymore, based on various people's "Logic".

badidea · Jul 28, 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Strange that so many muslims support these "fake" muslims. Or are these muslims "fake muslims" also ?

You are guilty of "Spin".

Maybe that's because many Iraqis didn't like the invasion and now support everybody who fights the invader??
Maybe some habitants of the country of Iran do not like the USA and therefor also support everybody who fights the USA??
Maybe not many Christians do live in those countries??

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
65% in Pakistan. Gosh, many "fake" muslims there, lol. Pakistan can not claim to be a muslim country anymore, based on various people's "Logic".

Favourable opinion of OBL. Perhaps they like what he stands for(free M.E. etc) but doesn't like his methods. Not the same as supporting the attacks he is responsible for. Just like you show that few in the M.E. believe he was behind the attacks.

macvillage.net · Jul 28, 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
About 1/3 to 1/2.

I could also come up with stats that 50% of Jews eat babies... and all the other terrible stereotypes people have come up with.

Doesn't make them accurate. Just would make me guilty of spreading more of that rediculus propeganda like up above.

There was an article during the integration of southern schools that claimed most african americans are incapable of reading, and cited lots of statistics on time spent in school, vs reading level... it was considered fact for years by some (and sadly still a few).

But it was completely wrong.

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Doesn't make them accurate. Just would make me guilty of spreading more of that rediculus propeganda like up above.

Care to show any cites that show the contrary ?

There is no denying that there is a big support for Osama and co. in many muslim places, something which the many links I posted shows. There are tons more links incase those are not enough.

This is not propaganda, it is stating the obvious. It is about time the real muslims do something about all of these fake muslims, IMO.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
It is about time the real muslims do something about all of these fake muslims, IMO.

I'll agree with you for once. We'll probably disagree on how to do it, but we agree on that it needs to be done.

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 04:07 PM

Here's an opinion piece that argues pretty forcefully that bin Laden is actually quite popular among some Muslims. I hope it's not true. Here are some quotes from the piece:

According to Hussam Khader, a member of Arafat's Fatah party, "Bin Laden today is the most popular figure in the West Bank and Gaza, second only to Arafat."

Survey research helps us understand these sentiments. In the Palestinian Authority, a Bir Zeit poll found that 26 percent of Palestinians consider the Sept. 11 attacks consistent with Islamic law. In Pakistan, a Gallup found a nearly identical 24 percent reaching this conclusion.

"Long live bin Laden" shout 5,000 demonstrators in the southern Philippines.

In Pakistan, bin Laden's face sells merchandise and massive street rallies have left two persons dead. Ten thousand march in the capitals of Bangladesh and Indonesia.

In northern Nigeria, bin Laden has (according to Reuters) "achieved iconic status" and his partisans set off religious riots leading to 200 deaths.

Pro-bin Laden demonstrations took place even in Mecca, where overt political activism is unheard of.

I remember on 9/11 when Reuters showed footage of Palestinians cheering. I actually got in a bit of an argument with my boss at the time, a political scientist and African scholar, and my current boss who's a muslim woman, who both (incorrectly) said the footage was false and Reuters was intentionally smearing good Muslims. I gave them the evidence that they were wrong and said I thought they were committing an error by minimizing a huge problem - that much of the Muslim world hates the US and supports basically anyone who stands up against us, no matter how bad they are. I still have my job.

More generally, I think the problem is one always faced with claims of heresy vs. orthodoxy, to put it in traditional Christian terms. Logic claims, in so many words, that Muslims who support terrorism are heretics, and that his is the orthodox approach. Bin Laden's followers assert otherwise. Well? Who's to decide who is the heretic and who is orthodox?

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Well? Who's to decide who is the heretic and who is orthodox?

The Quran makes it perfectly obvious who's the heretic and who's orthodox.

macvillage.net · Jul 28, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Care to show any cites that show the contrary ?

There is no denying that there is a big support for Osama and co. in many muslim places, something which the many links I posted shows. There are tons more links incase those are not enough.

This is not propaganda, it is stating the obvious. It is about time the real muslims do something about all of these fake muslims, IMO.

ANd I could show you stats that make America look like Nazi sympathizers.

It doesn't solve the argument. I'm not contibuting to your propeganda war. That would bring me down to your level.

Wiskedjak · Jul 28, 2004, 04:40 PM

I thought a terrorist is anyone whom George Bush implies is a terrorist.

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
The Quran makes it perfectly obvious who's the heretic and who's orthodox.

I sincerely doubt that. My guess is that you can justify all kinds of behavior with the Quran.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
I sincerely doubt that. My guess is that you can justify all kinds of behavior with the Quran.

Nope, the Quran is pretty clear on most things.

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Nope, the Quran is pretty clear on most things.

The quran doesn't say to fight those without faith in Allah? It doesn't say jihad is permissible to those attacked or wronged? I'm not saying it clearly demands war, just that there's room to interpret as such.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
The quran doesn't say to fight those without faith in Allah? It doesn't say jihad is permissible to those attacked or wronged? I'm not saying it clearly demands war, just that there's room to interpret as such.

1. Yes.
2. Not only permissible but it is their duty.
3. There is no room to interpret it like OBL does though, because there are clear rules for Jihad.

Developer · Jul 28, 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Nope, the Quran is pretty clear on most things.

As a believer you're not in the position to claim that.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
As a believer you're not in the position to claim that.

huh?

I'm much more in a position to claim that than a non-believer who has never read the Quran.

BRussell · Jul 28, 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
1. Yes.
2. Not only permissible but it is their duty.
3. There is no room to interpret it like OBL does though, because there are clear rules for Jihad.

Sounds to me like there's quite a bit of justification for initiating the jihad against the zionists and their backers the great satan. How you go about it - for example, suicide or not - seems more of a minor point once you accept that a war on the infidels is on.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
Sounds to me like there's quite a bit of justification for initiating the jihad against the zionists and their backers the great satan. How you go about it - for example, suicide or not - seems more of a minor point once you accept that a war on the infidels is on.

And that is the fundamental mistake you make. There are clear rules in how to fight a Jihad and how to treat the enemy. Just declaring a Jihad doesn't give you the right to do everything you want. You have to follow the rules of Jihad. I also suspect you have no idea what Jihad means.

Developer · Jul 28, 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm much more in a position to claim that than a non-believer who has never read the Quran.

No, you're not. That the Quran holds the truth is part of your belief, so when you say it's "pretty clear" that's an expression of your belief, not an objective fact.

A non believing observer sees you claim one thing and OBL the exact opposite, so it seems obvious that interpretation is not unambiguous but culturally influenced. Again, the idea that one of you is right, and the other one misguided is based on belief. Outside the belief system one can not make such a judgement.

Taliesin · Jul 29, 2004, 04:45 AM

The Quran definetly has set up rules for jihad (which is basically a form of military draft in times of war and a civil effort to commit good deeds or an effort to change the own character to the better in times of peace), for example:

- to only declare war when you are attacked by the enemy as a form of defense, or when the enemy is oppressing its own people, and the people explicitly ask for help to enfree them.

- to not kill non-combattants as long as the enemy also keeps the rule of not killing civilians. Should the enemy choose to kill civilians, retaliation is allowed, though not prescripted (forgiving is another option, if the enemy stops the fighting and promises not to do it anymore). When retaliation is to be applicated one has to ensure to not kill more civilians than the enemy has killed.

- to stop the war when the enemy is seeking genuine peace.

Taliesin

Spliffdaddy · Jul 29, 2004, 06:05 AM

A religion that explains how to have a war.

um. ok.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
A religion that explains how to have a war.

um. ok.

What's wrong with that? Since it the only war allowed to have according to Islam is a defensive one.

Spliffdaddy · Jul 29, 2004, 06:11 AM

as long as you're comfortable with it.

Don't worry about what the rest of us think.

macvillage.net · Jul 29, 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by BRussell:
The quran doesn't say to fight those without faith in Allah? It doesn't say jihad is permissible to those attacked or wronged? I'm not saying it clearly demands war, just that there's room to interpret as such.

1. Like Logic said

2. The bible also makes permissions for such actions. Old and New Testiment can be interpreted as such. So Christians and Jews still have that.

Christians used it during the Crusades, and in the Americas (look at how many Native Americans were killed by Christian missionaries).

Just like the missionaries of not-so-long-ago... it's not justified. Under the same terms as these terrorists aren't justified under the quran. It's pretty clear.

Again, it's just another example of people warping religion to suit their own personal ambitions. Do you think the Christian missionaries were after converting people? Or after all that land, and free labor the natives were able to provide.

They weren't justified, and outright broke Christian laws and morals of behavior. Not only wasn't it justified, it was a moral wrong because it was intentional blasphamy in the name of god (Jesus never touched or even spoke down to someone who didn't believe, even when on the cross), as well as violation of the 10 commandments.

The quran follows scripture tradition in this regard as well.