[Big Mac]

This terrific video is now making the rounds, at least in my neck of the online woods, and it's a must see. Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former radical (near terrorist) Muslim who was once deep within the terrorist ranks, speaks out. . . wait for it. . . not only in favor of Israel but also against one-sided concessions made by Israel to the terrorists.

Before you comment, please watch and try to take in the message of this righteous man.

[OldManMac]

All because of a belief that one religion is better than another. Sad, and tragic.

[Big Mac]

Actually, Dr. Hamid points out that it's not just because of religious triumphalism, although that's a core factor. The terrorists are also motivated to strike out against countries that guarantee basic human rights.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

All because of a belief that one religion is better than another. Sad, and tragic.

If it were about religious solidarity, any number of nations that flank Israel would welcome Palestinian refugees. Perhaps most sad of all is ignorance. if you think it's about religion, you're woefully mistaken. It's about fascism and those (including the majority of secular Israelis) who oppose it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, Dr. Hamid points out that it's not just because of religious triumphalism, although that's a core factor. The terrorists are also motivated to strike out against countries that guarantee basic human rights.

Which goes back to their religious beliefs. They believe in a radical interpretation of Islam, and they don't see what you and I see as "basic human rights." You make the same mistake as everyone else when you assume that there is such a thing as "basic human rights."

This isn't that complicated, folks. Mankind has been killing each other from day one over personal religious beliefs.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If it were about religious solidarity, any number of nations that flank Israel would welcome Palestinian refugees. Perhaps most sad of all is ignorance. if you think it's about religion, you're woefully mistaken. It's about fascism and those (including the majority of secular Israelis) who oppose it.

I'm not the one who's woefully mistaken, and it's obvious we're never going to agree on that subject.

[olePigeon]

So is he still a Muslim?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So is he still a Muslim?

That probably depends on who you ask.

-t

[olePigeon]

In the broadest sense, of course. He prays east and reads the Qur'an.

The point being, it's not Islam that's the problem, but the people using the religion to manipulate its followers. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. That sort of thing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You make the same mistake as everyone else when you assume that there is such a thing as "basic human rights."

Of course there are basic human rights. It's just that other humans (and governments) can choose to recognize those rights or not.

This isn't that complicated, folks. Mankind has been killing each other from day one over personal religious beliefs.

Mankind has been killing each other from day one because one caveman looked at another caveman's woman the wrong way, because one caveman was jealous that another caveman had a bigger cave than he did, because someone grunted at someone else the wrong way, because... on and on and on.

[ebuddy]

Odd to hear little more than "them towelheads ain't like you and me", then blame religion for what has been the standard among all living creatures everywhere.

Are we supposed to elevate ourselves beyond our four-legged survivalist friends? Yup. Problem is I'm not sure those pointing the finger at religion are aware of themselves. There is no religious tenet to account for the incredible atrocities committed by a minority of cultists in the Middle East just as there was no religious tenet to account for Stalin, Mao, etc...

With a population of over 23 million barbarians, you'd think Iraq would be in the news more.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Which goes back to their religious beliefs.

You're right, at least in part; I didn't say it had nothing to do with their religious beliefs. I only responded to your assertion that all the violence was because of belief of Islamic superiority over all other religions, and my point was that that's too narrow an explanation.

They believe in a radical interpretation of Islam, and they don't see what you and I see as "basic human rights."

They do believe in a radical interpretation of Islam (because that is the final interpretation of the religion that Mohammed apparently imparted to his followers), and you're right, they don't recognize basic human rights. But that doesn't mean basic human rights don't exist.

You make the same mistake as everyone else when you assume that there is such a thing as "basic human rights."

If humanity chooses to lower itself to the lowest common denominator, then you're right - there would be no basic human rights. I believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as a description of basic human rights. Clearly others don't believe anything of the sort, but that doesn't mean that those of us who do have to cede the argument to those who don't, or that those who don't believe in basic human rights are somehow more correct about the state of human affairs than those who do.

This isn't that complicated, folks. Mankind has been killing each other from day one over personal religious beliefs.

How do you know that?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

OThere is no religious tenet to account for the incredible atrocities committed by a minority of cultists in the Middle East just as there was no religious tenet to account for Stalin, Mao, etc...

I wish that were the case ebuddy, but the unfortunate fact is that Islam does mandate war against anyone who does not accept Islamic doctrine, including moderate Muslims. And that war can be not only violent but also barbaric. That was the focus of my previous thread on whether or not Islam truly is a religion of peace.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Odd to hear little more than "them towelheads ain't like you and me", then blame religion for what has been the standard among all living creatures everywhere.

Projecting much? At one time, all thinking creatures thought the world was flat, and up until not that long ago, bloodletting was considered a way to cure some illnesses.

Are we supposed to elevate ourselves beyond our four-legged survivalist friends? Yup. Problem is I'm not sure those pointing the finger at religion are aware of themselves.

You'd like to think so.

There is no religious tenet to account for the incredible atrocities committed by a minority of cultists in the Middle East just as there was no religious tenet to account for Stalin, Mao, etc...

No, they just banned religion and persecuted those who practice, just like they're doing again in China today, because they fear it's power.

With a population of over 23 million barbarians, you'd think Iraq would be in the news more.

More of that projection.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Projecting much? At one time, all thinking creatures thought the world was flat, and up until not that long ago, bloodletting was considered a way to cure some illnesses.

... and now they've turned to global warming, but of course I'm not talking about mankind alone. I'm talking about nature; all creatures everywhere that have ever fought over territory. What religion do they use?

No, they just banned religion and persecuted those who practice, just like they're doing again in China today, because they fear it's power.

Religion serves a power other than the State. This often creates a check to power much like the Catholic Church against Hitler and is inconvenient and unacceptable to totalitarianism. Unless of course it is being used by the State to serve itself.

More of that projection.

I'm just going by what you're saying OldManMac.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wish that were the case ebuddy, but the unfortunate fact is that Islam does mandate war against anyone who does not accept Islamic doctrine, including moderate Muslims.

Which sect of Islam? Westboro Baptists under the banner of Christianity for example, like to protest funerals through detestable means. This does not mean the majority of Christians share their sentiment or degree of hatred. Even if most believed as they do, they wouldn't have the stomach to protest in the same way.

A 2007 Pew Research Center study found that most Muslim Americans are "decidedly American" in income, education and attitudes, rejecting extremism by larger margins than Muslim minorities in Europe. The socio-economic condition in the US is different than in the Middle East or elsewhere. With approximately 2.8 million Muslims in the US, this would make a formidable force of war against a predominantly Christian nation yet... no Islamic war in the US.

And that war can be not only violent but also barbaric. That was the focus of my previous thread on whether or not Islam truly is a religion of peace.

Again, I bring up the fact that there are more than 23 million people in Iraq. While most are of the Islamic faith, only a small fraction are willing to take up arms against others over religious differences.

IMO, most people, Muslim or otherwise, don't have the stomach for jihad. If Islam were causal of violence, there'd be absolutely no hope of anything other than failure, misery, and death in Iraq. This is not the case. Jihad takes a great deal of work and may cost you your life. Most people want to live. As goes the opportunity for prosperity, so goes peace.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Which sect of Islam?

Any fundamentalist sect of Islam. Wahhabi is but one. Muslims who take their religion seriously, and especially those who go by the abrogation doctrine, will be at least be supportive of violent jihad and at most take up arms in the battle.

With approximately 2.8 million Muslims in the US, this would make a formidable force of war against a predominantly Christian nation yet... no Islamic war in the US.

It's a smaller population that is perhaps more secularly oriented, but don't count on it being that way indefinitely. We already know that the Saudis have been for years funding Wahhabi education in the United States. We're also starting to see homegrown Muslim terrorists from Muslim convert populations in America as well as native born American Muslims like Nidal Hassan. He could have easily gotten out of service over seas by his informing superiors or the media that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown over having to fight his own people, but instead he resorted to armed jihad. Unfortunately, you can safely bet that he won't be the last of his kind.

Again, I bring up the fact that there are more than 23 million people in Iraq. While most are of the Islamic faith, only a small fraction are willing to take up arms against others over religious differences.

Yes, we cleaned up Iraq for the time being because Bush had the courage to do what Obama was guaranteeing wouldn't work. But sectarian violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan only speak to the inherent violence of fundamentalist Islam - it's so violent that Muslims even kill fellow Muslims routinely in many different countries today, and most take such violence for granted.

IMO, most people, Muslim or otherwise, don't have the stomach for jihad.

But that doesn't negate what the fundamentalists and terrorists teach.

If Islam were causal of violence, there'd be absolutely no hope of anything other than failure, misery, and death in Iraq. This is not the case.

I hope Iraq can become a successful and relatively free country, but the case isn't closed yet.

Jihad takes a great deal of work and may cost you your life.

Fundamentalist Islam values sacrifice in jihad - even to death - over life. Hence Islamic suicide terrorism.

Most people want to live. As goes the opportunity for prosperity, so goes peace.

That's not necessarily true. For example, since 1967 Israel has built millions of dollars in infrastructure in the disputed territories for the Arabs. They opened the opportunities in education to them, taking them out of their traditional lifestyles. But with economic opportunity and education came incitement and hatred for Israel, not the opposite.

A similar thing is happening by design in Yemen. At one time most of the population there was peaceful. But the Saudis starting teaching and building up Wahhabi institutions, and now politicians and pundits are calling it tomorrow's warfront in the war against radical Islam. Add that to the list of Arab and Islamic countries currently ruled by moderates (sometimes moderate tyrants but moderates nonetheless) who are being threatened by the emergence of Muslim fundamentalist groups and parties. I would like to share your optimistic view, ebuddy, but the facts on the ground often tell a different story. That doesn't mean I believe all or even a majority are sympathetic to Muslim terrorism, but there is a substantial portion that indeed is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Any fundamentalist sect of Islam. Wahhabi is but one. Muslims who take their religion seriously, and especially those who go by the abrogation doctrine, will be at least be supportive of violent jihad and at most take up arms in the battle.

The hotbeds of Wahhabism enjoy a staggering wealth disparity and lack of literacy. Any ideal that has ever sought to demonize another ideal for the purpose of creating a common enemy was perpetuated through poverty and illiteracy. The doctrines of "take my word for it, this is your enemy" generally apply. This is no different in Saudi Arabia than it is in the US. It is this claim of "oppression" that defines the "oppressor" and has attracted an overwhelming majority of its US converts from the African-American community for example.

It's a smaller population that is perhaps more secularly oriented, but don't count on it being that way indefinitely. We already know that the Saudis have been for years funding Wahhabi education in the United States. We're also starting to see homegrown Muslim terrorists from Muslim convert populations in America as well as native born American Muslims like Nidal Hassan. He could have easily gotten out of service over seas by his informing superiors or the media that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown over having to fight his own people, but instead he resorted to armed jihad. Unfortunately, you can safely bet that he won't be the last of his kind.

Still... the majority of the most noteworthy of terrorist acts in the US have been committed by people who exploited our immigration policy, not US citizens.

Yes, we cleaned up Iraq for the time being because Bush had the courage to do what Obama was guaranteeing wouldn't work.

Much more than that IMO. The centralized government in Iraq is now distributing oil wealth through Iraqi provinces, substantial reconstruction employment, over eight million now with cellular phones compared to almost 0 in 2003, drop from peak of 77% inflation to 20% inflation in just 3 years, increasing vehicle ownership, and overall increasing employment, wages, and prosperity. This will only continue to improve with more entering the political arena and more people becoming actively involved in the rebuilding of their nation through PRTs, continued increase in domestic security forces, etc... Bush had the courage not only to do what Obama did not want to do, but the wisdom that the desire for peace, prosperity, and civility are not exclusively Western ideals. This was practically a mantra of his at the time regarding our work in Iraq.

But sectarian violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan only speak to the inherent violence of fundamentalist Islam - it's so violent that Muslims even kill fellow Muslims routinely in many different countries today, and most take such violence for granted.

It is easy to exploit the impoverished and uneducated by giving them a common enemy. The only hope is democracy, free market, and prosperity. The problem with Afghanistan (other than corruption to the very core of course) is the fact that they have little resource other than poppy fields from which to build prosperity. I understood the move in Iraq, Afghanistan I'm not so sure. This remains to be seen. There is violence to be sure and make no mistake, as long as there is poverty there will be people more susceptible to the teachings of cults that seek to define a common enemy.

Fundamentalist Islam values sacrifice in jihad - even to death - over life. Hence Islamic suicide terrorism.

I understand what the cult teaches, I'm simply outlining what helps it grow. Science, religion, philosophy... anything can and will be used to manipulate a poorer socio-economic condition. This is not exclusive to religion. If you define their god as the source of strife, it will only be a matter of time before your god is defined as the source of strife. If you are compelled to give your life for your god at any point, you are no less than a jihadist by this logic.

That's not necessarily true. For example, since 1967 Israel has built millions of dollars in infrastructure in the disputed territories for the Arabs. They opened the opportunities in education to them, taking them out of their traditional lifestyles. But with economic opportunity and education came incitement and hatred for Israel, not the opposite.

How does the baser problem still not apply? Palestinians are among the most illiterate people in the Middle East aside from Kuwaitis, unemployment at approximately 25% collectively, poverty rates of 45.7% in the West Bank and 79.4% in Gaza. There is only so much opportunity available within territory the size of New Jersey. This is why I wish the surrounding governances would open their borders, but this cannot happen because of imperialism, not religion IMO. Religion becomes the tool for the impoverished, once used as a means of weathering difficulty, now used to demonize one against the other.

A similar thing is happening by design in Yemen. At one time most of the population there was peaceful. But the Saudis starting teaching and building up Wahhabi institutions, and now politicians and pundits are calling it tomorrow's warfront in the war against radical Islam. Add that to the list of Arab and Islamic countries currently ruled by moderates (sometimes moderate tyrants but moderates nonetheless) who are being threatened by the emergence of Muslim fundamentalist groups and parties. I would like to share your optimistic view, ebuddy, but the facts on the ground often tell a different story. That doesn't mean I believe all or even a majority are sympathetic to Muslim terrorism, but there is a substantial portion that indeed is.

I think the facts on the ground tell two different stories. You're not going to eliminate a religion any more than others would seek to eliminate yours. The only thing to do is to address the conditions that produce the perfect environment for violence in any city, poverty.

[Big Mac]

ebuddy, you make a lot of good points that I don't have time to respond to right now, but I wanted to get a quick response in to the following lines.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I think the facts on the ground tell two different stories. You're not going to eliminate a religion any more than others would seek to eliminate yours.

I don't seek or desire to eliminate Islam. But I also refuse to delude myself or others into thinking that it is inherently a peaceful religion when it is not.

The only thing to do is to address the conditions that produce the perfect environment for violence in any city, poverty.

I still think you missed my point. There are people all over the globe who are far poorer than those who make the deadliest Islamic terrorists. If poverty were the root cause of terrorism, you'd think the poorest regions of Africa and Asia would be teeming with terrorists, but they're not. The Arabs of the disputed territories often build beautiful (illegally built) homes - they are far from poor - yet they still seethe in Jew-hatred, and a portion turn to terrorism. Their "culture" is one that elevates those who die committing terrorist acts. It's not poverty but rather a specific evil mindset at fault, I assure you. As I said, their population became far more radicalized after Israel gave them economic and educational opportunities - not when they were in their traditional peasant roles. If you take to heart the message of the esteemed doctor in the video I linked to in my original post, you'll see that he doesn't blame poverty for terrorism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

ebuddy, you make a lot of good points that I don't have time to respond to right now, but I wanted to get a quick response in to the following lines.

I appreciate that Big Mac. Thank you.

I don't seek or desire to eliminate Islam. But I also refuse to delude myself or others into thinking that it is inherently a peaceful religion when it is not.

I've never gotten into the "this is an inherently peaceful religion" or "that is an inherently peaceful religion" discussions because the notion of inherently peaceful seems to miss the point. Is there a people of any creed not guilty of failing their tenets and/or using their religion to motivate desperate people toward unspeakable acts? I believe the desperate condition is the kindling for manipulation.

I still think you missed my point. There are people all over the globe who are far poorer than those who make the deadliest Islamic terrorists. If poverty were the root cause of terrorism, you'd think the poorest regions of Africa and Asia would be teeming with terrorists, but they're not.

Southeast Asia for example? What do you define as "teeming with terrorists" and "poorest of regions"?

The Arabs of the disputed territories often build beautiful (illegally built) homes - they are far from poor - yet they still seethe in Jew-hatred, and a portion turn to terrorism.

... but where are they getting the money? It's not like they invented the Post-it® or something. Know what I mean? They're being sponsored. The ones enjoying their lives trying to build something aren't offing themselves with bombs strapped to their sides. They'd much rather just keep to their own and get their piece of the pie. There are those unfortunately who would funnel their resources into endeavors that exploit the desperate conditions of have-nots. They will use any notion available to them including religion. Democratic nations are more peaceful, prosperous nations. Opportunity and prosperity trump terrorism. It's harder to identify an oppressor without oppressed people.

Their "culture" is one that elevates those who die committing terrorist acts. It's not poverty but rather a specific evil mindset at fault, I assure you. As I said, their population became far more radicalized after Israel gave them economic and educational opportunities - not when they were in their traditional peasant roles. If you take to heart the message of the esteemed doctor in the video I linked to in my original post, you'll see that he doesn't blame poverty for terrorism.

I think this is a case of a people getting just enough handouts from various sources that they can afford to wage violence. Thankfully, they are still in the significant minority. There are many esteemed academics on this issue and they do not all agree.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

They do believe in a radical interpretation of Islam (because that is the final interpretation of the religion that Mohammed apparently imparted to his followers)

Big Mac pounding the same ol' drum: true Islam = militant Islam.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So was the guy who recently tried to blow up airliner with his crotch a believer in a radical interpretation of Islam, or was he just suffering from some sort of pre-stress disorder like the last guy who actually DID manage to kill a bunch of innocent people?