Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Fitna (graphic video warning)

Fitna (graphic video warning) (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I can see the video had its intended effect on your target audience
Actually I didn't watch it. I just deduced this from the fact that every country Islam has touched has turned into crap. And of course, most places in Europe with majority Islamic populations are crap, too. Say what you will about the moral content of these claims... I doubt you will be moving to Saint-Denis anytime soon.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Everyone knows that this is addressed towards fundamentalistic and militaristic Islam.
I wouldn't say so at all. Did you watch the video? It makes a point of quoting the Koran, suggesting that it is Islam and Mohammed in themselves that are the problems rather than a particular culture or interpretation of it. This is a very common line of argument among some groups. The irony is that obviously Islam isn't just going to go away, and so to me it seems obvious that the strategy should be to drive a wedge between violent extremists and the rest. Why some people seem intent on driving them together is beyond me.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah View Post
My religion does not teach hatred of others. ... My religion does not teach me to go to war with people. My religion does not teach me to betray deals struck with the enemy. And the list goes on.
Explain these verse please. I'll admit, some are probably completely out of context, but that's what i;d like you to set straight.

9.123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

4.101. For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

5.51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

8.16. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

25.52. Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an).

33.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

33.29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

33.123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

66.9. O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed).
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
And how exactly would that look like ?
Disclaimers ? Constantly acknowledging that there are peaceful muslims ?

Everyone knows that this is addressed towards fundamentalistic and militaristic Islam.

-t
Errr ...

Equating Islam with fundamentalism is wrong. It's that simple. And it's the video's message. The very issue is that this film is not directed towards fundamentalism but instead equates Islam with fundamentalism as being one and the same. If it weren't, there'd be no fuss about it, would there? Perhaps you ought to watch the video again or read up on what Wilder has said on the issue.
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
What is a "true" Muslim? By that very same logic, to a true (whatever you mean by that term) Jew,, religion is inseparable from life. To a true Buddhist, Buddhism is inseparable from life. To a true Christian, Christianity is inseparable from life.
I see you make no distinction between 'life' and 'your life'. A true Christian can well have Christianity as an inseperable part of his/her life, but a true Muslim can't because it spills out to 'life in general'.

A Muslim isn't just a Muslim for himself, but for everyone around him. Others must be subjugated to the 'truth'.

Also I find it ironic that women defend Islam. The subjugation of women is built-in the religion. Take 'moderate Turkey' for instance:

CHP officials in Denizli have filed a legal complaint about a pro-sharia poetry book written by Fatma Durmus, the wife of a former imam. Thousands of copies of the book are being distributed in mosques - free of charge - and are also delivered to people’s homes. The ‘poetry’ book idolizes PM Erdogan, treats him as a ‘prophet’, or ‘Caliph’, and says that those against him are being against Allah, “those that hurt him hurt Allah”.

The book invites sharia, longs for an Islamist “mujahideen military”, slams ‘infidels’ and condemns secular life style “adopted from Christianity”. The book insults Ataturk and his mother, as well as the Republic and the military, attacks the uncovered women who “show their private body parts”, who are – the book claims - “shameful”, “sinful”, “cheap” and “void of any honor, virtue or faith”.

One of the poems advocates segregation of sexes in education and says that putting girls with boys in same classrooms would result in the filling of the streets with thrown away, unwanted babies.
(Source: Vatan, Milliyet, Hurriyet, Cumhuriyet, Turkey, March 27-28, 2008)

....but I digress.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Then you'd be right there in that category because this video does NOT make the distinction between Islam and fundamentalism.
I'm a moral absolutist.

The video isn't there to make friends or be nice to anyone. It will offend, but it isn't being dishonest. The fact is that even though not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Of course this shouldn't be our dialogue. This should be between moderate Muslims and the extremists. Much like we deal with our occational Christian or Jewish extremists.

This has gone too far and is spilling in on our table.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 11:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Equating Islam with fundamentalism is wrong
Try talking to any believing Muslim about the Mohammed caricatures. Then report back about the results.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Errr ...

Equating Islam with fundamentalism is wrong. It's that simple. And it's the video's message. The very issue is that this film is not directed towards fundamentalism but instead equates Islam with fundamentalism as being one and the same. If it weren't, there'd be no fuss about it, would there? Perhaps you ought to watch the video again or read up on what Wilder has said on the issue.
Err... to you.

I don't see how the film equates Islam with fundamentalism as being one and the same.
That's what YOU read into it. Along with many muslims. Especially those of the knee-jerking kind that immediately issued death threats.

-t
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2008, 11:56 PM
 
Here is a 'critique' of this film by a moral-relativist and a typical 'intellectual' non-passionate Westerner.

(note that the reviewer actually admits he didn't really watch the movie because it offended him so much)

� FITNA - Alternative Film Guide

In Wilders’ warped mind, there’s no socioeconomic-political context for modern-day terrorism. It’s all about the ancient Koran. (But if so, I wondered while watching Fitna, why weren’t there terrorist attacks 60 or 160 or 260 years ago? True, there are more Muslims in Europe now than before, but there has always been a Muslim presence on that continent.)
It's all socio-economics people. Case closed. Now go and appease a Muslim.

This reviewer also half-heartedly tries to equate this with anti-Semetic propaganda films of the early 20th century, although again, he admits he didn't really watch them either.

He does mention that they were fictious, however, but doesn't connect-the-dots completely because whatever Fitna is, it isn's fiction. Too many innocent people have died for a dipshit like that to try and dismiss reality with historical revisionism.

But that's just me..

“Building Better Worlds”
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 12:39 AM
 
Of course, there were such attacks years ago.

The United States fought the Barbary wars form 1801 to 1815 over Muslims kidnapping and enslaving Americans, but not before trying appeasement and having to decide that appeasement doesn't work.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. -- "American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress. LoC: March 28, 1786. http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj.../0400/0430.jpg

The Siege of Vienna in 1529, as distinct from the Battle of Vienna in 1683, was the first attempt of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, led by Sultan Suleiman I (the magnificent), to capture the city of Vienna, Austria. The siege signaled the Ottoman Empire's highwater mark and the end of Ottoman expansion in central Europe, though 150 years of tension and incursions followed, culminating in the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

So, we can make a timeline from 1529, 1683, 1783-1815, to present day. 1529 isn't the beginning. It appears that 711 is the beginning, with the Iberian peninsula. The peninsula was fraught with fighting between Muslims and Catholics off and on through 1492.

And that's not really even scratching the surface.
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 12:54 AM
 
Indeed.. there is much strife guaranteed if you live next to a Muslim nation.

Samuel P. Huntington wrote in his book "The Clash of Civilizations" that "In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS (emphasis mine)".

Within Islamic societies, there is peace. But anywhere Moslem communities come into contact with other cultures there is violence. This is due to the fact that Islam is the most intolerant of the world’s religions where violence is accepted and encouraged to maintain orthodoxy, terrorize the unbelievers, and spread the faith.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Samuel P. Huntington wrote in his book "The Clash of Civilizations"...
... a lot of poorly constructed and unsubstantiated theories. Never have the complexities associated with identity and culture been so terribly simplified as they were in Huntington's work. As if each individual's actions are guided solely by one source of identity, e.g. Islam. People always have several sources of identity - religion is just one, what about race, gender, culture, university, occupation etc - how you choose to identify yourself is not something that remains static throughout your life, which is why Huntington's depiction of 'Islam' vs 'the West' is too simplistic. Neither is 'Islam' or even the 'West' the homogenous blocs Huntington considers them to be. There are very few countries in this world untouched by globalisation, every country has people of varying religions, for example, living there. What happens to Huntington's theory when you find 'Western' countries populated with thousands of Muslims (or 'Islamic' countries, populated with thousands of 'Westerners' (or Christians). Any attempt by Huntington to define his 'civilisations' simultaneously leads him to disprove his own thesis.

I'm an Arab British Muslim. By Huntington's logic that suggests I should be at war with...myself. Riiight. The idea that you can divide 'civilisations' up in to homogenous blocs is factually false. So is the suggestion that when one 'civilisation' (whatever that is) meets another the result will always be violence, which is the conclusion Huntington reaches before even defining his own concepts.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:28 AM
 
Actually, I'm not positive that either of you have read Huntington's work.

It is re-printed here, in whole: 103 Huntington Clash of Civilizations full text

Note that the proper title contains a question mark. Huntington isn't making the conclusion as much as he poses a question.

I wouldn't be surprised if you both are drawing on what other people have said about his work, like Edward Said's dusty old criticism of it, for example.

I think you and Huntington find agreement on at least one point (I suspect more than one.) In part III, Huntington writes: "Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim." As you say, today you identify as an Arab British Muslim. (I observe that you did not identify as a British Muslim Arab. Do you find that there is a priority placed on being Arab before being British?)

And, LBK, don't you also identify as a Jordanian sometimes? I seem to recall this is so. Are you telling me that you've never had to reconcile internal conflict over any action, belief or introspection on how you conceive of yourself?
( Last edited by vmarks; Mar 30, 2008 at 09:43 AM. )
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
... a lot of poorly constructed and unsubstantiated theories.
Of course you are right it's just one big co-incidence that nobody can live peacefully close to a Muslim nation for very long...

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
Never have the complexities associated with identity and culture been so terribly simplified as they were in Huntington's work. As if each individual's actions are guided solely by one source of identity, e.g. Islam. People always have several sources of identity - religion is just one, what about race, gender, culture, university, occupation etc - how you choose to identify yourself is not something that remains static throughout your life, which is why Huntington's depiction of 'Islam' vs 'the West' is too simplistic.
Of course we're all unique snowflakes, but I dare say Mr. Huntington has a point nevertheless.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
Neither is 'Islam' or even the 'West' the homogenous blocs Huntington considers them to be. There are very few countries in this world untouched by globalisation, every country has people of varying religions, for example, living there. What happens to Huntington's theory when you find 'Western' countries populated with thousands of Muslims (or 'Islamic' countries, populated with thousands of 'Westerners' (or Christians). Any attempt by Huntington to define his 'civilisations' simultaneously leads him to disprove his own thesis.
When thousands of Muslims are living in Western countries there is conflict and strife everywhere where the Muslims are numerous enough to think they stand a chance.

I was going to ask in what paradise you live, but ah the UK is one of the biggest cesspools of the Muslims Mr Wilder was referring to. The Tube-bombers were UK arab Muslims, like yourself.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
I'm an Arab British Muslim.
Arab first, British then and Muslim last? Interesting. Ethnicity>Nationality>Religion.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
By Huntington's logic that suggests I should be at war with...myself. Riiight. The idea that you can divide 'civilisations' up in to homogenous blocs is factually false. So is the suggestion that when one 'civilisation' (whatever that is) meets another the result will always be violence, which is the conclusion Huntington reaches before even defining his own concepts.
Muslims in the UK are at war with themselves, though you may not be. They are at war with the UK while being citizens. Ask the nationality of the terrorists who blew themselves up in the London Underground and report back to me.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
I see you make no distinction between 'life' and 'your life'. A true Christian can well have Christianity as an inseperable part of his/her life, but a true Muslim can't because it spills out to 'life in general'.

A Muslim isn't just a Muslim for himself, but for everyone around him. Others must be subjugated to the 'truth'.

Also I find it ironic that women defend Islam. The subjugation of women is built-in the religion. Take 'moderate Turkey' for instance:



(Source: Vatan, Milliyet, Hurriyet, Cumhuriyet, Turkey, March 27-28, 2008)

....but I digress.
I am not defending Islam in any which way. I am Christian by birth and while I'm an agnostic, I am of the opinion that populism and fueling hate is in no way productive to any society. And this is the purpose of the video. That is my point and my only point.
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Err... to you.

I don't see how the film equates Islam with fundamentalism as being one and the same.
That's what YOU read into it. Along with many muslims. Especially those of the knee-jerking kind that immediately issued death threats.

-t
That is what most of the Western World reads into it as well, not just me and I'm not a Muslim. Last I read the newspapers, that was the problem most people had with the video.
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
I am not defending Islam in any which way. I am Christian by birth and while I'm an agnostic, I am of the opinion that populism and fueling hate is in no way productive to any society. And this is the purpose of the video. That is my point and my only point.
Very good, that's an opinion. But you can't actually *stop* a video that *you* think is fuelling hate. Not only is there (more or less) freedom of expression, but it's entirely possible that you are interpreting this completely wrong.

Muslims in the Netherlands didn't go all up in arms over this video, why should a Christian/Agnostic even give it a second thought?

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Try talking to any believing Muslim about the Mohammed caricatures. Then report back about the results.
Oh, I have. And - believe it or not - the few Muslims I know (very few) took no issues with it. They didn't find it funny but not offensive either. That is not to say that I don't find the bru-ha-ha made over the caricatures silly. I don't understand why people cannot laugh about themselves or whatever it is they believe in, but I'm not them and if they don't think it's funny making fun of religion, it's hardly my place to judge them for it.
( Last edited by Faust; Mar 30, 2008 at 09:50 AM. )
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Actually, I'm not positive that either of you have read Huntington's work.

It is re-printed here, in whole: 103 Huntington Clash of Civilizations full text

Note that the proper title contains a question mark. Huntington isn't making the conclusion as much as he poses a question.
While I respect your opinion and all, putting a '?' after a claim doesn't make it a question. Ask a person 'Can't you read?' and that person will of course not interpret that as an simple question about his/her abilities - it's a claim not question. Questionmark or no.

In other words he's making a claim that he will substantiate, but is it possible to unequivically prove it? Of course not, hence the questionmark.

Fox News uses this logic a lot, it's quite amusing.

Suggesting that I've not read the very good and informative text is amusing and patronizing at the same time. It's not a long or a complicated text and quite a necessary read. Also I'd be surprised if Lil'babykitten hasn't read it too.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Actually I didn't watch it. I just deduced this from the fact that every country Islam has touched has turned into crap. And of course, most places in Europe with majority Islamic populations are crap, too. Say what you will about the moral content of these claims... I doubt you will be moving to Saint-Denis anytime soon.
Bingo !

I didnt watch the video either... watching executions doesnt bode well with me, unlike places like SA and Iran where people's(actual human beings) body parts are chopped off in public.

After whats happening in France and the U.K., can u imagine the chaos if (heaven forbid) Turkey was part of the EU with an open border ? *shudder*

They keep yelling "crusade crusade", but the advances they make on Chrisendom and the free world are perfectly legit, what with muslim-only schools in Sydney on the table and the world's largest mosque (or something to that effect) in the U.K.

bah... I Was hoping Australia would be isolated from this stuff, but Melbourne and Sydney have turned into Lebanese ganglands, and it was a little chilling to see John Howard attacked a few years ago by people weilding Lebanese and Hammas flags.

MN, USA (not sure which city, im guessing Minneapolis) taxi cab drivers at the international airport (being mostly muslim) "vote", to refuse rides to anyone carrying alcohol out of the terminal. lol

Whats next ? Women in Italy having to wear borkas with the only other options being stoned to death or whipped ?
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Very good, that's an opinion. But you can't actually *stop* a video that *you* think is fuelling hate. Not only is there (more or less) freedom of expression, but it's entirely possible that you are interpreting this completely wrong.

Muslims in the Netherlands didn't go all up in arms over this video, why should a Christian/Agnostic even give it a second thought?
I'm not stoping anything (how could I possibly?). Nor am I against the video being shown. I am against the way the content is presented. I'm taking issues with the equation of fundamentalism and Islam because that is precisely the video's aim. If it weren't, why would anyone (who is not an extremist) have issues with the video? I mean, it's not exactly provocative to state that radicalism is a threat. It's not exactly news that extreme Islam is contra-humanity. It's the video's message that I find stupifying and utterly useless, even dangerous. Its only purpose is to spread angst and more hatred (as if we didn't have enough of that already). There is no other message in it. Propaganda in its purest form. I don't like it and am merely voicing it in this thread and - I strongly assumed - that was the purpose of this thread.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
I'm an Arab British Muslim. By Huntington's logic that suggests I should be at war with...myself.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:51 AM
 
Because you got hung up on the question mark, and it's meaning, I'm going to have to quote Huntington's conclusion of his work to you.

"IX. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WEST

THIS ARTICLE DOES not argue that civilization identities will replace all other identities, that nation states will disappear, that each civilization will become a single coherent political entity, that groups within a civilization will not conflict with and even fight each other. This paper does set forth the hypotheses that differences between civilizations are real and important; civilization-consciousness is increasing; conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict; international relations, historically a game played out within Western civilization, will increasingly be de-Westernized and become a game in which non-Western civilizations are actors and not simply objects; successful political, security and economic international institutions are more likely to develop within civilizations than across civilizations; conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization; violent conflicts between groups in different civilizations are the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars; the paramount axis of world politics will be the relations between "the West and the Rest"; the elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this; a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.

This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypotheses as to what the future may be like. If these are plausible hypotheses, however, it is necessary to consider their implications for Western policy. "

So, are they plausible hypotheses? The work was written in 1993. Since that time, we've seen Yugoslavia split, the USSR split, and Russia clash with Chechnya. We've seen continued fighting in the Sudan. Fine and well, there's some substantiating evidence - Huntington's greater point is how you reckon with these situations in a world where States are not the only actors in foreign policy.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:53 AM
 
Add Fukuyama to the mix and we can all stop talking about this and go home.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Oh, I have. And - believe it or not - the few Muslims I know (very few) took no issues with it. They didn't find it funny but not offensive either. That is not to say that I don't find the bru-ha-ha made over the caricatures silly. I don't understand why people cannot laugh about themselves or whatever it is they believe in, but I'm not them and if they don't think it's funny making fun of religion, it's hardly my place to judge them for it.
Sure it's your place, if you have a value system of right and wrong.

You may be incorrect in your judgement, but it's certainly yours to make.
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Sure it's your place, if you have a value system of right and wrong.

You may be incorrect in your judgement, but it's certainly yours to make.
Why should I get all heated and annoyed over the fact that Muslims don't like having Mohammed being caricatured? I really do not give a rats arse what they find funny and what they don't. If Muslims lack humour in that regard, so be it. They can't make me stop laughing and I can't make them laugh. I don't see the issue nor do I see where my judgement is incorrect in this regard or what "judgement" has to do in this context at all.
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Because you got hung up on the question mark, and it's meaning, I'm going to have to quote Huntington's conclusion of his work to you.

"IX. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WEST

THIS ARTICLE DOES not argue that civilization identities will replace all other identities, that nation states will disappear, that each civilization will become a single coherent political entity, that groups within a civilization will not conflict with and even fight each other. This paper does set forth the hypotheses that differences between civilizations are real and important; civilization-consciousness is increasing; conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict; international relations, historically a game played out within Western civilization, will increasingly be de-Westernized and become a game in which non-Western civilizations are actors and not simply objects; successful political, security and economic international institutions are more likely to develop within civilizations than across civilizations; conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization; violent conflicts between groups in different civilizations are the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars; the paramount axis of world politics will be the relations between "the West and the Rest"; the elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this; a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.

This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypotheses as to what the future may be like. If these are plausible hypotheses, however, it is necessary to consider their implications for Western policy. "

So, are they plausible hypotheses? The work was written in 1993. Since that time, we've seen Yugoslavia split, the USSR split, and Russia clash with Chechnya. We've seen continued fighting in the Sudan. Fine and well, there's some substantiating evidence - Huntington's greater point is how you reckon with these situations in a world where States are not the only actors in foreign policy.
I see you can't stop your patronizing attitude, which is sad - but I'll state this once more for you. I've already read the article. There's little more tireing than people stuck on telling people to read or re-read something they've already read, just because my conclusion from the text differs somewhat from yours.

Also: Setting a questionmark after a claim does not make it a question. Not that I'm hung up about it, I'm rather hung up about your patronizing attitude.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Then Wilders got it right? Bakri seems to approve.
That's my point entirely, western islamophobes and radical islamists are siding with each other in thought.

They are both way wrong, though.

As to the islamophobic rants of Kerrigan and Weyland-Yutani and others here: Be ashamed, really.


@ Railroader:

Every verse you quoted has his specific historical context in the war that the polytheists in Arabia started against prophet Muhammad and his followers.
You, as a christian, might be against the use of violence, even in a war, but God never had a pacifistic stance.

It was always the same, whenever God inspires a prophet/messenger to voice a revelation from Him, the devil and his followers try their best to destroy the revelation before it establishes as a religion.
God orders then His prophet and followers what to do. The tactics of God to let His prophets defeat the devil and his manichinations can vary vastly. In the case of Arabia and the war the polytheistic arabs started, fighting was necessary, and so God revealed the tenets of a just war in the Quran.

"Kufar" is the quranic term that is usually translated as "unbeliever", that is a shortcutted translation, that leaves alot of its meaning out, for "kufars" were not atheists. "Kufars" were those people that actively opposed a prophet and his message.
The opposition had never a rational basis, usually the argument these "kufars" brought up was "we can't leave our gods since our forefathers worshipped them, too". They had no basis for their polytheism, no revelation, no scripture, nothing except that their forefathers worshipped them, too.

In Moses' prophet-time, he went to the leader of Egypt, the pharao, and told him about His message, that there is only one god, the one who created everything, the one who chose Moses as His messenger, the lord, who ordered him to go to the pharao and to tell him to let Moses' people into freedom, so they could leave Egypt.

The egyptians at that time had a religion, in which there existed numerous gods, but in which one of these gods would manifest himself in the pharao to rule the egyptians, in which the pharao became the son of one of these gods, mostly the son of Re.

The egyptians viewed the pharao as a sort of god. The similarities to the Jesus-son of god-idea are striking, but that should not matter for now.

The whole egyptian society was indulged in the idea of the pharao being a sort of god, or rather a direct link to one of the gods, mostly Re. The pharao was according to them responsible for the rise and ebb of the Nile and as such ensuring the livelihood of the agriculture, and he was responsible for the people that were dead in this life but living in the beyond, by ensuring that they received the food and clothings they would need there, and a lot of other duties...

In short the whole egyptian society was interwoven with that pharao-"son of Re"-religion. Then came prophet Moses to pharao to tell him flatly that He was sent by God, the only real god, to lead the hebrew-people out of Egypt.
To underline his sincerity, he also came with divine signs of authority to make the point clear.

The pharao and most of his people became opponents of Moses and God, they became "kufars", for how can a prophet dare to challenge the whole egyptian system by declaring to have been sent by the only real god, by giving orders to the pharao and threatening him with divine punishment...

Skip a few centuries to the time of Jesus and the jewish elites as part of a semi-autonom province of the roman empire.

I will have to continue it next time, if God wills, as I have other things to do right now.

Taliesin
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Propaganda in its purest form. I don't like it and am merely voicing it in this thread and - I strongly assumed - that was the purpose of this thread.
Granted it isn't a documentary, but it was only made to make a political point. Films about politics aren't automatically propaganda.

Of course you are correct about the purpose of this thread

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Why should I get all heated and annoyed over the fact that Muslims don't like having Mohammed being caricatured? I really do not give a rats arse what they find funny and what they don't. If Muslims lack humour in that regard, so be it. They can't make me stop laughing and I can't make them laugh. I don't see the issue nor do I see where my judgement is incorrect in this regard or what "judgement" has to do in this context at all.
Hans-Otto-Theater Potsdam

This theater is showing "Die Satanischen Verse", and yes they've received death threats. One actor at least has withdrawn from the production because of it and the police has hightened security around the theater in response to possible terrorism.

This isn't about jokes. Wake up!

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
That's my point entirely, western islamophobes and radical islamists are siding with each other in thought.

They are both way wrong, though.

As to the islamophobic rants of Kerrigan and Weyland-Yutani and others here: Be ashamed, really.
Islamophobic

You wish. I don't fear Islam.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Granted it isn't a documentary, but it was only made to make a political point. Films about politics aren't automatically propaganda.

Of course you are correct about the purpose of this thread
No, they aren't. But this one is. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Actually, I'm not positive that either of you have read Huntington's work.

It is re-printed here, in whole: 103 Huntington Clash of Civilizations full text
I have.

Note that the proper title contains a question mark. Huntington isn't making the conclusion as much as he poses a question.
His question is formulated on the basis of his research (although his research skills are evidently questionable). He does hold a primordial vision of the role of ethnicity and culture, which erroneously leads him to believe different cultures are destined to clash, always violently. And this is what I disagree with.

Originally Posted by vmarks
As you say, today you identify as an Arab British Muslim. (I observe that you did not identify as a British Muslim Arab. Do you find that there is a priority placed on being Arab before being British?)

And, LBK, don't you also identify as a Jordanian sometimes? I seem to recall this is so.
In this instant I wrote things in that order because the sentence flowed better that way! But you raise the important point I am making - people's identities are fluid. How people define themselves is influenced by the environment (e.g. political, social, school, work) in which they are. When I go to the mosque I am asserting my Islamic identity. When I used to play for my university's sports club, I was asserting my university identity. When radical political Islamists blew up a wedding celebration in Jordan a few years ago I asserted my Jordanian nationality to express my solidarity with the victims. When London won the Olympic bid, I asserted my British identity when I celebrated. All of you will have similar experiences - that is the nature of identity. And why Huntington has it wrong.

Are you telling me that you've never had to reconcile internal conflict over any action, belief or introspection on how you conceive of yourself?
Every individual lives their life according to a value system, whether that is dictated by religion or simply on the basis of a personal judgement about what is right and wrong. That system informs how people react to different situations they meet in life - I would seriously doubt anybody who tried to maintain they have never experienced an internal conflict of belief. That is part of life. What Huntington is saying is that in the case of 'Islam' and the 'West' whatever conflict arises will always result in violence and is irreconcilable. Rubbish! When my friends go out to clubs, I simply don't go. When they go bowling, I join them. They respect my decision and I theirs.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Of course you are right it's just one big co-incidence that nobody can live peacefully close to a Muslim nation for very long...
And your implied reasoning behind the origins of such conflicts is religion. Not a new argument people have attempted to make, but unfortunately the causes of conflict are complex and immensely varied. Christians lived quite peacefully in Iraq until 2003. Today that is not the case - inevitable according to you, but something else happened in 2003 that might be worth considering. And what about the sectarian dynamic? That's Muslims Vs Muslims - something that doesn't really fit in to Huntington's civilisational blocs of Islam vs everyone else.

Muslims in the UK are at war with themselves, though you may not be.
And here you completely contradict yourself in one sentence. You identify one apparently unified bloc of people but then acknowledge that I do not fit within that bloc. Because it's pointless to talk about huge unified groups of people! Differences exist inside religions as much as they do between others.

They are at war with the UK while being citizens. Ask the nationality of the terrorists who blew themselves up in the London Underground and report back to me.
As I said above, everyone passes through life experiencing several conflicts of belief and everyone has their own way of dealing with that conflict. To suggest that the London bombers exemplify every conflict of belief experienced by Muslims is just utterly nonsensical. There are divergences of belief in Islam, just like in Christianity. Every religious group has criminals, radicals, murderers as well as good people. That is the complexity of life.
( Last edited by lil'babykitten; Mar 30, 2008 at 10:48 AM. )
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Hans-Otto-Theater Potsdam

This theater is showing "Die Satanischen Verse", and yes they've received death threats. One actor at least has withdrawn from the production because of it and the police has hightened security around the theater in response to possible terrorism.

This isn't about jokes. Wake up!
What does this have to do with the video at hand? Is anyone belittling or denying the fact that radical Islamists are a threat? I think not. Not here anyway.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
@ Railroader:

Every verse you quoted has his specific historical context in the war that the polytheists in Arabia started against prophet Muhammad and his followers.
...
So would you agree that the rough translation of what you're saying is:

"The questionable parts of the Quran referred to can be explained by looking at the historical, social and political context of when they were written. While they are not appropriate in today's world, they were in earlier times."



The problem I have with this – the obvious problem, really – is that they're still in the Quran today, and obviously they're still followed in "today's world." Fine. There's an explanation for them, just like there's an explanation for many eye-raising things found in the Old Testament. But unlike the Old Testament (which for most Christians has been supplanted by the New Testament, minus those effed-up cults that import part of the Old Testament for the purposes of gaining more manly power, and for the purposes of most Jews has been supplanted by a more-moderate and non-literal interpretative approach), a significant portion of Muslims still believe and follow these "objectionable parts" of the Quran.

So why don't you get it the **** out then? Cut cut delete.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Because you got hung up on the question mark, and it's meaning, I'm going to have to quote Huntington's conclusion of his work to you.
Like I said, read it already. It was a poor cover up conclusion because he saw his ass was bare. Essentially he is saying 'this might not be the case....but I think it is.' That's not how you formulate reliable theories.

If he is so concerned about non-state actors, perhaps it would be wise to stop looking for over-arching explanations for global conflict. Theorising broad civilisational clashes doesn't help explain non-state actors any more than state-based structural theories.
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
No, they aren't. But this one is. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
Because it isn't lying and the subject matter don't deserve an impartial treatment when it comes to this. It's the right thing to do.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
What does this have to do with the video at hand? Is anyone belittling or denying the fact that radical Islamists are a threat? I think not. Not here anyway.
I'll connect the dots for you.

It has to do with the video because the video is explaining how radical Muslims are a threat, a problem and overtly hostile to their adopted Western countries, their culture and religion. Also this piece of news demonstrates that 'moderate' Muslims can't, don't or won't reign their insane religious brothers and sisters in - which makes them part of the problem. Sadly.

As I said, the moment radical Islam became *our* problem instead of the problem of 'moderate' Islam, it became clear that the practicioners of Islam can't or won't deal with this. Dealing with it is right and the only way to prevent real and severe actions against Muslims *in general* is for moderate Muslims to act against these insane radicals and reign them in.

Human rights for religion are superseded by the human right for *living*.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Oh, I have. And - believe it or not - the few Muslims I know (very few) took no issues with it. They didn't find it funny but not offensive either. That is not to say that I don't find the bru-ha-ha made over the caricatures silly. I don't understand why people cannot laugh about themselves or whatever it is they believe in, but I'm not them and if they don't think it's funny making fun of religion, it's hardly my place to judge them for it.
You gotta be effing kidding me.

So the death threats against Liveleak are a joke, right ?
And the violent reactions against the Danish caricatures was a joke as well ?
And the continued death threats against Rushdi are, of course, not serious either.

WAKE UP !!!

-t
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
And your implied reasoning behind the origins of such conflicts is religion. Not a new argument people have attempted to make, but unfortunately the causes of conflict are complex and immensely varied. Christians lived quite peacefully in Iraq until 2003. Today that is not the case - inevitable according to you, but something else happened in 2003 that might be worth considering. And what about the sectarian dynamic? That's Muslims Vs Muslims - something that doesn't really fit in to Huntington's civilisational blocs of Islam vs everyone else.
Nice spin, and I'll grant you the courtesy of treating you as a fully-fledged Westerner who has accepted her host country when I say that this is a bunch of liberal wishy-washy moral-relativism. Muslims vs Muslims in Muslim countries doesn't enter into this discussion and individuals aren't the problem.

As for Iraq, as well you know, until 2003 it was a secular Muslim country where *any* show of religious extremism was beaten down ruthlessly by Saddam Hussein. That's the reason Christians could live there.

If I were to look at you as a Muslim only, who hasn't accepted her host country, then I'd say you're simply an Islamic-apologist and deliberately shut your eyes to the inate flaws in your religion.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
And here you completely contradict yourself in one sentence. You identify one apparently unified bloc of people but then acknowledge that I do not fit within that bloc. Because it's pointless to talk about huge unified groups of people! Differences exist inside religions as much as they do between others.
Nonsense, you are not making a distinction between groups and individuals because your argument hangs entirely upon that we can't treat this as a group problem, only as an individual problem. Like the Bush administration regarding the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse: "It's just a few bad apples".

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
As I said above, everyone passes through life experiencing several conflicts of belief and everyone has their own way of dealing with that conflict. To suggest that the London bombers exemplify every conflict of belief experienced by Muslims is just utterly nonsensical. There are divergences of belief in Islam, just like in Christianity. Every religious group has criminals, radicals, murderers as well as good people. That is the complexity of life.
The attempt to absolve Muslims in general and Muslims in the UK in particular from the London terrorists is nonsensical. They could only live, flourish, prepare themselves and commit these atrocious acts with support from other Muslims in the UK. They need and depend on grass-root support. The London-bombings were to no small amount the fault of implied or expressed sympathy, assistance and/or the turning of a blind eye of UK Muslims.

Turning this into argument about individuals and geo-political discussion is just throwing sand in the eyes of people in hope that they forget the real problem. The impotence of Muslims to do anything. Or their unwillingness. Actions speak louder than words, Arab British Muslim.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You gotta be effing kidding me.

So the death threats against Liveleak are a joke, right ?
And the violent reactions against the Danish caricatures was a joke as well ?
And the continued death threats against Rushdi are, of course, not serious either.

WAKE UP !!!

-t
I am seriously asking myself if you misunderstand what I say on purpose. Who talked about attacks and violence being a joke? READ the post I responded to and stop putting things out of context. Jesus (no pun). I'll not comment any further. Yutani at least understands the difference in argumentation and merely disagrees with my point of view which is perfectly fine and valid.
( Last edited by Faust; Mar 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM. )
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 12:34 PM
 
That is your opinion and I respect that but I will continue to insist that you cannot equate Islam and fundamentalism. I am not implying that you are making that equation. The video, however, is.
I am being repetitive here. I refuse to abide by that logic because it is not only dangerous but partly the same reasoning that fundamentalists use. They don't differentiate. The West is evil, Jews are bad etc. I cannot befriend this train of logic because it is stupid, hateful and barbaric to the bone. The creator of the video has no other intention than fuel hatred and more tension. And many people buy it. Of course they do. Videos like this are effective for a reason. They oversimplify matters, play with angst, have little to no content and target the most primitive fears of human beings. And it works.

What questions does the video raise?

What solutions does it offer?

Which part of our cerebral capacities are being put to a challenge with his video? Any at all?

Does the video make you think?


There are tons of newspapers, documentaries, live discussions led on this very issue every single damn day of the week. And each of them offers more insight into the subject matter than this cheap, propaganda video created by a right-wing populist who has admitted his hate for Islam publicly. Not his hate for radicalism, mind you, but his hate for the religion itself. That in itself is not a crime, but it demonstrates where his intentions lie. And I think we have better means to understand the threats of fundamentalism or the lethargy/numbness of the rest of the world (which is your key criticism as I understand it) than by applauding the work of an extremist who offers no insight whatsoever other than stating the obvious and - while being at it - throwing every single Muslim into his equation.



Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
I'll connect the dots for you.

It has to do with the video because the video is explaining how radical Muslims are a threat, a problem and overtly hostile to their adopted Western countries, their culture and religion. Also this piece of news demonstrates that 'moderate' Muslims can't, don't or won't reign their insane religious brothers and sisters in - which makes them part of the problem. Sadly.

As I said, the moment radical Islam became *our* problem instead of the problem of 'moderate' Islam, it became clear that the practicioners of Islam can't or won't deal with this. Dealing with it is right and the only way to prevent real and severe actions against Muslims *in general* is for moderate Muslims to act against these insane radicals and reign them in.

Human rights for religion are superseded by the human right for *living*.
( Last edited by Faust; Mar 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
I am seriously asking myself if you misunderstand what I say on purpose. Who talked about attacks and violence being a joke? READ the post I responded to and stop putting things out of context. Jesus (no pun). I'll not comment any further. Yutani at least understands the difference in argumentation and merely disagrees with my point of view which is perfectly fine and valid.
Again, here the recap:

Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Try talking to any believing Muslim about the Mohammed caricatures. Then report back about the results.
Originally Posted by Faust View Post
Oh, I have. And - believe it or not - the few Muslims I know (very few) took no issues with it.
SO WTF ? What's you point ?

I just said that there are MANY muslims who have no sense of humor AT ALL, and immediately resort to threats and violence. It's really nice for you that your Döner Verkäufer is a peaceful muslim, but that is neither what we are talking about in this thread, nor is it any helpful that people keep coming with "But *I* know a nice muslim".

No, I did not misunderstand you. I understood that you really did not make freaking point.

-t
     
Faust
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: hamburg, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 12:58 PM
 
What was TETENAL's point? Oh yes. He said I should ask any BELIEVING MUSLIM about the caricatures and report the results which implies that every believing Muslim would take issue with the caricatures. That is a false assessment. What part do you not get?

If you take issues with people who refuse to put blame on an entire part of a population for their religious or ethical beliefs, then that is your right to do so. To say that these people have no point is ludicrous at best, no matter how many "WTF", "freaking" or "What is you(r) point" you throw into your arguments.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Again, here the recap:





SO WTF ? What's you point ?

I just said that there are MANY muslims who have no sense of humor AT ALL, and immediately resort to threats and violence. It's really nice for you that your Döner Verkäufer is a peaceful muslim, but that is neither what we are talking about in this thread, nor is it any helpful that people keep coming with "But *I* know a nice muslim".

No, I did not misunderstand you. I understood that you really did not make freaking point.

-t
( Last edited by Faust; Mar 30, 2008 at 01:12 PM. )
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Nice spin, and I'll grant you the courtesy of treating you as a fully-fledged Westerner who has accepted her host country when I say that this is a bunch of liberal wishy-washy moral-relativism. Muslims vs Muslims in Muslim countries doesn't enter into this discussion and individuals aren't the problem.

As for Iraq, as well you know, until 2003 it was a secular Muslim country where *any* show of religious extremism was beaten down ruthlessly by Saddam Hussein. That's the reason Christians could live there.

If I were to look at you as a Muslim only, who hasn't accepted her host country, then I'd say you're simply an Islamic-apologist and deliberately shut your eyes to the inate flaws in your religion.
Well that didn't really address anything I said, so I'll take it you couldn't think of a counter-point and instead decided to try and analyse me personally.

You did very nicely demonstrate with the Saddam Hussein example how being Muslim doesn't necessarily impact upon your reaction to conflict and difference. So you have kinda proved my point, though I did it better. Thanks.

And if I felt my religion was inately flawed, then I wouldn't really believe in it, would I?
The flaws are in people's interpretation of religion, and that is an historic problem that you should be well aware of by now.

Nonsense, you are not making a distinction between groups and individuals because your argument hangs entirely upon that we can't treat this as a group problem, only as an individual problem. Like the Bush administration regarding the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse: "It's just a few bad apples".
Poor comprehension - and analytical skills. When analysing a group problem, which in the case of extremism is a group problem (that goes without saying), you need to understand it's roots. And since all groups are comprised of individuals, that is what leads to analysis at the individual level. Radical political Islamists are the group in question here, not 'Islam.' By your logic the only solution to the problem then would be for Islam to go. And that reveals your prejudice. It will, never, ever happen though.

Your torture example also reveals your misunderstanding - the 'bad apples' in this discussion are the people who carry out suicide bombings (in your example, the soldiers). The ultimate culprits are those who provide the ideological religious justification for suicide terrorism - the group leaders, recruiters and manipulators (in your example the Bush administration).

The attempt to absolve Muslims in general and Muslims in the UK in particular from the London terrorists is nonsensical. They could only live, flourish, prepare themselves and commit these atrocious acts with support from other Muslims in the UK. They need and depend on grass-root support. The London-bombings were to no small amount the fault of implied or expressed sympathy, assistance and/or the turning of a blind eye of UK Muslims.
The only support the London bombers got from Muslims in the UK were from those who were also radicals committed to carrying out the attack, not the general Muslim population. They do not enjoy support from mainstream Muslim society, nor do they have 'grass-roots' support. You equate attempts to understand why there are Muslims in this country willing to engage in such terrorist acts with 'implied or expressed sympathy'. It is not, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

Turning this into argument about individuals and geo-political discussion is just throwing sand in the eyes of people in hope that they forget the real problem. The impotence of Muslims to do anything. Or their unwillingness. Actions speak louder than words, Arab British Muslim.
You introduced a commentary piece from an author that was talking about geo-politics, not me.
I really don't know why you think your average law-abiding Muslim has the capacity to combat radicalism any more than the security services do. There is no 'word on the street' that only Muslims have access too.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
The attempt to absolve Muslims in general and Muslims in the UK in particular from the London terrorists is nonsensical. They could only live, flourish, prepare themselves and commit these atrocious acts with support from other Muslims in the UK. They need and depend on grass-root support. The London-bombings were to no small amount the fault of implied or expressed sympathy, assistance and/or the turning of a blind eye of UK Muslims.
So, I guess Americans must then be held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and Christians must be held responsible for all anti-abortion terrorist actions.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
There is no 'word on the street' that only Muslims have access too.
Unfortunately there is a 'word on the street' discount only for Muslims at a Middle Eastern restaurant I love. Let me in damn you

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, I guess Americans must then be held responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and Christians must be held responsible for all anti-abortion terrorist actions.
That was so ill-thought out, that it doesn't really make sense because I know what point I made and this 'counter-point' doesn't apply. It's a straw-man argument, as they call it. You were supposed to leave that kind of arguing outside this forum.

I'll break your strawman, though.

1. Americans should be held responsible to whom, exactly, regarding the Oklahoma bombing?

2. If you think Christians do not react unambiguously and strongly against such atrocities as terrorist actions against abortion-clinics, then you're ill informed or just ignorant. Things like abortion-clinic terrorims never *ever* occurs in European or Eastern Christianity. The incident you speak of can be isolated to one definded fringe of Christianity, in one particular country nad has not found any support in the wider world.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
Well that didn't really address anything I said, so I'll take it you couldn't think of a counter-point and instead decided to try and analyse me personally.
You could do that, and be wrong or accept that I didn't adress what you said because it is utterly irrelevant

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
You did very nicely demonstrate with the Saddam Hussein example how being Muslim doesn't necessarily impact upon your reaction to conflict and difference. So you have kinda proved my point, though I did it better. Thanks.
Indeed, well I'm not here to convince an Islamic-apologist nor to play wordgames with a person who has as little understanding of politics as you do.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
And if I felt my religion was inately flawed, then I wouldn't really believe in it, would I?
Why not? Tom Cruise believes in Scientology probably as much as you believe in your flavor of flawed religion. I could tell you which one is more insane than the other, but I'm not going to spell it out for you

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
The flaws are in people's interpretation of religion, and that is an historic problem that you should be well aware of by now.
Humans are flawed, but that doesn't explain the inherent corruption of Islam. People make errors and it is evident in centralized religion when that happens, because the error spread fast and uniformly.

In a decentralized religion such as Islam, this shouldn't be apparent because the versions of Islam are about as many as the Imams or Muslims that interpret the Koran.

However there is an amazing amount of Muslims who interpret it the same way, which leads them to blow themselves and others up, subjugate women and dismiss human rights. That points to a corruption in the religion itself. It is rotting from the inside.

''A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.'' - Matthew 7:18

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
Poor comprehension - and analytical skills. When analysing a group problem, which in the case of extremism is a group problem (that goes without saying), you need to understand it's roots. And since all groups are comprised of individuals, that is what leads to analysis at the individual level. Radical political Islamists are the group in question here, not 'Islam.' By your logic the only solution to the problem then would be for Islam to go. And that reveals your prejudice. It will, never, ever happen though.
You see, you don't understand the word prejudice. It's really a two part word.

'pre' (meaning before) + judice (meaning judge)

When one has examined the subject at hand, heard arguments from all relevant sides and then passed judgement it is not prejudice. That's an informed opinion. If one were to reach the conlusion that Islam is inherently damaging and completely incompatible with Western society, that would not be prejudice just because it is against a religion. Religions can be inherently wrong. It would be politically incorrect and very audacious, but not be prejudice.

Your naive tendencies to examine radical Islamic terrorists on an individual level is poor judgement. Almost all terrorists in the world share *your* religion. I reckon if they converted to Christianity it would be safe to say it would mean the end of terrorism. Which proves my point, this isn't an individual problem. It is a rot in your religion and it has always been there. From day one.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
Your torture example also reveals your misunderstanding - the 'bad apples' in this discussion are the people who carry out suicide bombings (in your example, the soldiers). The ultimate culprits are those who provide the ideological religious justification for suicide terrorism - the group leaders, recruiters and manipulators (in your example the Bush administration).
They don't exist in a vacuum these bad apples. They are grown from the fertile support of their surroundings. The terrorists and fanatics are not a fringe group. They sprout rather evenly and rather randomly. Some are young, some are women, some are educated lawers and some are rich Saudi-Arabians. The only thing they have in common is that they are willing to blow themselves up in a crowd.

They are raised in a Muslim society, which raises them, supports and nurtures them to become terrorists. Moderate Muslims stand silently by, while the more radical lend support or speak highly of the atrocities the terrorists make. There is a cesspool of bile in Islam and it is raising terrorists. Constantly.

Why terrorists? Because they'd be raising armies if they stood a chance, but even Israel (a very small state) whips their ass every time.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
The only support the London bombers got from Muslims in the UK were from those who were also radicals committed to carrying out the attack, not the general Muslim population. They do not enjoy support from mainstream Muslim society, nor do they have 'grass-roots' support. You equate attempts to understand why there are Muslims in this country willing to engage in such terrorist acts with 'implied or expressed sympathy'. It is not, no matter how many times you keep repeating it.
Of course they had the support of Muslims in the UK, they were Muslims *from* the UK for crying out loud. You can refuse it until you are blue in the face, but terrorism does not grow and prosper in a society which condemns them. Either they have the support of fellow Muslim in general or they would simply not exist.

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
You introduced a commentary piece from an author that was talking about geo-politics, not me.
What nonsense. Huntigton writes a lot about geo-politics, but here's that quote again:

Violence occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. ISLAM HAS BLOODY BORDERS (emphasis mine)
That's not a quote on geo-politics, unless Islam is somehow geo-political and not religious? Or are you unable, like so many Muslims, to seperate politics from religion?

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten View Post
I really don't know why you think your average law-abiding Muslim has the capacity to combat radicalism any more than the security services do. There is no 'word on the street' that only Muslims have access too.
Well then, you are useless to us. We certainly can handle our extremists. We do it so well it is down to an art.

The security services could deal with all Muslim extremists, it's just that you'd be deported along with them. Now we don't really want that, now do we?

So make yourself worth something, do something. You have no excuse.
( Last edited by Weyland-Yutani; Mar 30, 2008 at 03:16 PM. )

“Building Better Worlds”
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2008, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
bla bla bla... That points to a corruption in the religion itself. It is rotting from the inside....bla bla bla
Lots of words and yet you said very little. You have just repeated everything you said previously, without acknowledging anything that was written in response.

Basically for you, Islam = terrorism and the solution is to 'cleanse' the world of Muslims. People have tried that already, it didn't work and it never will.

So make yourself worth something, do something. You have no excuse.
What we have learned here is that you don't really have any idea what you're talking about, you lack reading comprehension skills and the ability to debate (which means coming up with a logical point to counter the other's argument). So since you'd like people to make themselves worth something, perhaps start with yourself? Read some books. You have no excuse.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,