[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The scariest terrorist of them all.

Polemist? Yes.

Terrorist? nope.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

A danger score of 2 out of 10... *yawn*. There are so many things to be afraid of, why obsess over this? There are many other things in this fine list worthy of attention...

Climate change has a higher score on this list and has a high probability of occurring in our lifetime, why aren't the neo-cons quivering under their covers over this?

Hell, even robots taking over scored higher. Let's all be afraid of robots!! That sounds like a great idea!


The other thing you posted was just a nice laundry list of things to do to be safe from human enemies - not very scary. I'm more afraid of robots taking over.

After all, Pearl Harbor was just a few thousand dead. It had NO OTHER significance. It wasn't going to be followed up by any other attacks. It didn't reduce and diminish our defenses or our offensive capability or anything like that.

EDIT: The ACTUAL impact of the Pearl Harbor attack was probably a 2 or 3 out of 10. Maybe a 4.

I guess you'd call the twin towers falling a 3? Nothing to get upset over. "Uh, make that a DOUBLE latte, please!'

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Be afraid everybody, very afraid! I found this in the bathroom stall at my work, life-sized too!

[img]http://battlestarfanclub.com/battlestar/photos/bgpic3.jpg[img]

How's that working for you? The mocking? Do you like the outcomes and positive conversations that result from such a tactic?

[Kevin]

AH he is was just lightly trolling.

Far worse things happen in here.

baby steps.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

It "targets" the issue "very well".

They seem fed up, that's for sure.

The "About us" area seems to be the only one withy some kind of "openess", but it is biased towards the idea of Islam preaching violence.

That's what the site was designed to do. It is whistle-blowing for sure. It is the use of media to expose what it considers a dangerous trend. In the year 2000 for example, at least 32 conflicts were identified in which Muslims accounted for over 20 of them. These are either muslims fighting muslims or muslims fighting non-muslims. If you were to flip this account and it had shown Christianity in this light for example, I'm not sure we'd be having this conversation. I say this only because I'm still fielding indictments against Christianity using examples like the Inquisitions over a century ago and abortion-clinic bombings in1998. Like you, the "about us" is all I had read. I did not glean from that introductory statement that they were a site dedicated to hatred.

Therefore, all it presents ar the violence created in the name of that religion. But like you, I have not dug much around the site.

That's not hatred. That's statement of fact. See, I think we throw around the word "hate" too liberally. At some point the term begins to lose veracity. It's the same thing that happens when we begin to compare Bush or other prominent figures to Hitler. Unless the same level of attrocity has been committed by the latter, we diminish the significance and horror of the former.

Yet, I have a question: where is te part of that website that presents daily aspects of Islam that are actually constructive and positively oriented?

That's not what the site was intended to do. There are plenty of sites for those things. There are plenty of people saying; "yes, this is troublesome, but..." I believe we need to continue stating facts without the "but".

I don't have a problem with people listing events identifying violence, but this one is far too specialized and compromised against Islam to my taste.

You may disagree with the format of the site and you may find it distasteful, but this does not mean it is a hate site. I think the word hate is used too liberally. It diminishes the significance of the word.

Why is ti that the media only mention the bad stuff whilst there are good people, who mhappen to be Muslim, and do a great deal of good?

This is true. There are many who believe there isn't near enough coverage on the successes attained by the US armed forces in Iraq for example. No one wants to hear about schools being built, power infrastructure back on line, libraries, and hospitals being built, 60% increase in annual household income, severely declined unemployment, car ownership, and capital attainment at an all-time high for the region, etc... It's more fun to hear about schools being destroyed, or prison-law abuses, and torture.

Say, Muslim U.S. Marines? Or Muslim scientists? Or Muslim workig for Peace? I am certain that i America, a lot of Muslim work for the good of humanity, in hte name of their religion?

I agree. The only time I heard about a Muslim US soldier, was the time one was caught rolling a grenade into his own camp. This is unfortunate.

But let's not talk about them! Let's talk of the flashy violence, and generalize hatred instead; that sells so much more paper and publicity!

There are sites that count the # of dead due to US foreign policy, these are factual sites as well. Ones that I believe you would likely not call "hateful".

The problem I see with most people who have some beef against Muslim is their prejudice about the religion.

I have no problem with the religion, but I can tell you that there's only a couple of muslims on this site and I've had to endure their bastardization of my Scripture to make connections that don't exist and in trying to refute the authenticity of my faith. I've made a particularly concerted effort not to do this to them. It didn't work. There are plenty of people saying; "Islam represents an exceptional level of violent offenders, but...". Conceding a point, then adding the "but" (taking the point away again) is not working. I have no problem worshipping as I choose and allowing others to worship as they choose, but it seems very difficult for (at least the few on this site) to allow me the unfettered, unchallenged freedom to do so. This seems to be the case abroad as well. I am only speaking for myself as I know there are several professing Christians on this forum who do this to Islam. Personally, I'm not interested in belittling a religion. I'm interested in emboldening and enlightening a people. The problem is not Islam in and of itself as it is a problem of socio-economic conditions. Conditions facilitated by regimes less interested in their "alleged" religion and more interested in the exploitation of it's adherents for personal gain.

As if the only "good Muslim" is the Atheistic one. Or the Christian one?

Muslim is not a race, it's a religion. If they are atheist or Christian, they are not Muslim.

All religions have serious flaws. imho, mainly due to human interpretation, or the reproduction on paper of the attributed words from "that God" by humans.

This statement represents the best example of what I'm saying. Terror committed in the name of Islam is bad, BUT all religions are flawed. This message solves absolutely nothing and in fact propogates a complacent mentality. Of course all religions have flaws, but we're not talking about flaws Pendergast. We're talking about global conflict in which a significant majority are perpetrated by those giving one particular faith a bad name. The; "this is all bad, BUT..." is not working.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It's the same thing that happens when we begin to compare Bush or other prominent figures to Hitler. Unless the same level of attrocity has been committed by the latter, we diminish the significance and horror of the former.

I agree. These people cannot be compared.

That's not what the site was intended to do. There are plenty of sites for those things. There are plenty of people saying; "yes, this is troublesome, but..." I believe we need to continue stating facts without the "but".

My point is that it targets only that, and creates a charge against that negative aspect of some Muslims. It may state facts, but it states a very specific type of facts. That is not my cup of tea.

You may disagree with the format of the site and you may find it distasteful, but this does not mean it is a hate site. I think the word hate is used too liberally. It diminishes the significance of the word.

We agree on the overuse of "hate". In this case, the sites promotes only one type of information, and that refers only to negative aspects.

This is true. There are many who believe there isn't near enough coverage on the successes attained by the US armed forces in Iraq for example. No one wants to hear about schools being built, power infrastructure back on line, libraries, and hospitals being built, 60% increase in annual household income, severely declined unemployment, car ownership, and capital attainment at an all-time high for the region, etc... It's more fun to hear about schools being destroyed, or prison-law abuses, and torture.

Let's hear it then. I have bee looking for such examples in these threads, and so far, haven't found many. Rarity does not mean non-existence, yet, it is just that; rarity.

On the other hand, even though there is a long list of violent events from some Muslims, the lists of good deeds is not published anywhere.

Reactionaires who will expose only one side of the pictures (i.e. Pachead or Athens) do disservice to reality and feed more hatred. That website is part of a similar deal imho.

As a side note, I am sure there are good deeds done by the Coalition of the willing in Iraq, however, I admit having been very opinionated because of how the process was done from day one. As I mentioned before, Saddam Hussein had to go, but I am still not clear that it had to be done that way, or so long after GW I. Allow me to criticise U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the U.S. over he U.N.

I agree. The only time I heard about a Muslim US soldier, was the time one was caught rolling a grenade into his own camp. This is unfortunate.

I dare say it reeks an interest into stigmatizing Muslims, making them all guilty by omission. That is a problem.

There are sites that count the # of dead due to US foreign policy, these are factual sites as well. Ones that I believe you would likely not call "hateful".

Agreed.

I have no problem with the religion, but I can tell you that there's only a couple of muslims on this site and I've had to endure their bastardization of my Scripture to make connections that don't exist and in trying to refute the authenticity of my faith. I've made a particularly concerted effort not to do this to them. It didn't work. There are plenty of people saying; "Islam represents an exceptional level of violent offenders, but...". Conceding a point, then adding the "but" (taking the point away again) is not working. I have no problem worshipping as I choose and allowing others to worship as they choose, but it seems very difficult for (at least the few on this site) to allow me the unfettered, unchallenged freedom to do so. This seems to be the case abroad as well. I am only speaking for myself as I know there are several professing Christians on this forum who do this to Islam. Personally, I'm not interested in belittling a religion. I'm interested in emboldening and enlightening a people. The problem is not Islam in and of itself as it is a problem of socio-economic conditions. Conditions facilitated by regimes less interested in their "alleged" religion and more interested in the exploitation of it's adherents for personal gain.

I think this is a human characteristic that we can generalize all over our species.

Muslim is not a race, it's a religion. If they are atheist or Christian, they are not Muslim.

You are right; nevertheless, it is the spirit that is carried in most exchanges I've read from some hard core opponents to Islam here.

This statement represents the best example of what I'm saying. Terror committed in the name of Islam is bad, BUT all religions are flawed. This message solves absolutely nothing and in fact propogates a complacent mentality. Of course all religions have flaws, but we're not talking about flaws Pendergast. We're talking about global conflict in which a significant majority are perpetrated by those giving one particular faith a bad name. The; "this is all bad, BUT..." is not working.

We can certainly disagree on this. Yes religions have flaws. People are not their religion (even if some pretend these are unseparable, whether these are radical Christians or Palestinians kamikaze). And this is where we have are strongest disagreement: No one is giving a religion a bad name: only people who "christian" (no pun intended) a religion as such are giving it a bad name. That is one source of confusion as well as aggravating prejudice, which turns into further generalization to a group of believers, whether they are Christian or not.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kevin

AH he is was just lightly trolling.

Far worse things happen in here.

baby steps.

In what way is this relevant to the topic at hand?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

We can certainly disagree on this. Yes religions have flaws. People are not their religion (even if some pretend these are unseparable, whether these are radical Christians or Palestinians kamikaze).

Too true. I've often said there are only a few spokesmen for a faith while there are millions of adherents.

And this is where we have are strongest disagreement: No one is giving a religion a bad name: only people who "christian" (no pun intended) a religion as such are giving it a bad name.

I don't understand this point at all Pendergast. Terrorists committing criminal acts in the name of their God is indeed giving that faith a bad name. I don't think there's a lot of play in that statement. It is unfortunate, but in my country Islam is synonomous with terror. Those that represent Islamic leadership need to be MORE loud than those who are misrepresenting their religion. When we say; "these things are bad, but Christians..." we are not solving anything at all. We are quieting a much needed counter to extremism. BTW, what does it mean to "christian" a religion???

That is one source of confusion as well as aggravating prejudice, which turns into further generalization to a group of believers, whether they are Christian or not.

Generalizations will always exist. All we can do is represent our philosophies in a positive manner. As a Christian for me to say; "bombing abortion clinics is bad, but muslims..." will not ease the tension between the two. You must be willing to say that terrorism is bad. Period. No qualifications, no "buts", no indictments of others, just the facts. That site while you may find it distasteful is blowing the whistle on the degree of criminal activity done in the name of a faith. It is deemed hateful because it does not contain the word "but". Those of the indicted faith are welcome to do the same and denounce suicide bombing with equal fervor. I'm not seeing a lot of this and when I do there is almost invariably a "but". The religion is in dire need of a louder, positive representation that does not qualify terrorism. No ifs ands or buts about it. All IMHO of course.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

In what way is this relevant to the topic at hand?

Why don't you ask besson3c why he tried to derail the thread? Why are you commenting on the post that is replying to a post that questioned besson3c's attempt at derailing?

I was being rhetorical, you are quite obvious in your intentions.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I don't understand this point at all Pendergast. Terrorists committing criminal acts in the name of their God is indeed giving that faith a bad name.

My point is that they give themselves a bad name. The religion is a scapegoat, a bystander, and not much else. These terrorists project a value to a religion that is nothing but a set of ideas that are prone to some liberty of interpretation.

The religion is not terroristic in itself. I apologize if I was not clearer.

I don't think there's a lot of play in that statement. It is unfortunate, but in my country Islam is synonomous with terror.

I understand that in your country, peple attribute to Islam a value of terror. They, just as the terrorists attribute to the religion a terror value.

Those that represent Islamic leadership need to be MORE loud than those who are misrepresenting their religion.

I agree that more education from any religious leadership is necessary. However, I am not sure they can do that easily. In Montreal, the Islamist community is divided over the drawings. However, the local leadership made it clear that in manifesting their disagreement, the fidels will have to behave appropriately (no insults, no burning, no European flags burned, no manifestation at the Danish embassy, etc.). But they did so, apparently, because a manifestation was planned by some members.

This tells me that actually, they are concerned about the issue, but have refrained from any public declaration, and it is likely for fear of more retaliation from non-Muslim locals. Canada is tolerant, but I am do not believe we are necessarily an example to follow.

Generalizations will always exist. All we can do is represent our philosophies in a positive manner. As a Christian for me to say; "bombing abortion clinics is bad, but muslims..." will not ease the tension between the two. You must be willing to say that terrorism is bad. Period. No qualifications, no "buts", no indictments of others, just the facts. That site while you may find it distasteful is blowing the whistle on the degree of criminal activity done in the name of a faith. It is deemed hateful because it does not contain the word "but". Those of the indicted faith are welcome to do the same and denounce suicide bombing with equal fervor. I'm not seeing a lot of this and when I do there is almost invariably a "but". The religion is in dire need of a louder, positive representation that does not qualify terrorism. No ifs ands or buts about it. All IMHO of course.

Terrorism is bad. But the question is always about why it came to be. That is much more complicated than saying "it is bad".

My position is that Islam is not in need of a more positive packaging. We need to open our eyes and make the difference betwen the ideas and the people enacting them.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

My point is that they give themselves a bad name.

No, they are giving the religion of Islam a bad name, and the Islamic World is much more worried about a few cartoons than all of the terrorists who have supposedly hijacked their religion. That isn't going to fly. Any clear thinking person can see right through that garbage game that they are playing.

[jjlannoo]

Originally Posted by porieux

All religion is bad.

Best post.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by jjlannoo

Best post.

If you were judging on idiocy I guess.

[besson3c]

Looking at the list of attacks:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Most of these do not seem to be attacks on America, but attacks on each other. Is this surprising? We know the region is not stable, just like we know that the Gaza Strip is not stable.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the site, there were definitely not 4000+ attacks on the USA.


Secondly: could you have picked a more biased source?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the site, there were definitely not 4000+ attacks on the USA.

Nobody claimed it was did they ? That's GLOBAL attacks, because muslim terrorists are a GLOBAL problem. The USA is doing fine, considering the lack of attacks since 9/11. The rest of the world should worry.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Nobody claimed it was did they ? That's GLOBAL attacks, because muslim terrorists are a GLOBAL problem. The USA is doing fine, considering the lack of attacks since 9/11. The rest of the world should worry.

I thought the discussion was about why *we* (i.e. Americans and Canadians) should be worried?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I thought the discussion was about why *we* (i.e. Americans and Canadians) should be worried?

Well, Americans should be worried because we are the great satan afterall. Muslim terrorists is a global problem, and there's Europeans and others who post on this forum. I don't think this thread is just about Americans or Canadians.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Well, Americans should be worried because we are the great satan afterall. Muslim terrorists is a global problem, and there's Europeans and others who post on this forum. I don't think this thread is just about Americans or Canadians.

In another thread, I asked what the difference is between terrorism and crime. The best answer I received was that terrorism is crime committed on another country based on ideological differences.

This, by definition, is civil war, not terrorism. This isn't just about semantics either, if you look at any country where there is civil war going on, the number of attacks are going to be inflated more or less like the numbers on this site.


There is a reason why these two different words exist. I often have a hard time telling the difference, and my distinction might not be accurate, but I'm sick of terrorism being flung around as the latest craze in fear, when most of what people are afraid of is no different than the crime that has existed for centuries.

Michael Moore's central thesis in Bowling for Columbine continues to be right, Americans are a fearful bunch.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Michael Moore's central thesis in Bowling for Columbine continues to be right, Americans are a fearful bunch.

Michael Moore is a fearful hypocrite himself. He has an armed bodyguard.

Do you deny that a vast group of Muslim terrorists has declared war on the USA ? Do you not believe them ? Is 9/11 not proof enough for you ? What is your motive for downplaying the terrorist threat ? Individual Americans shouldn't go around fearing the terrorists, but the USA as a whole should take the terrorists very seriously and apologists such as yourself are only helping the terrorists advance their goals. Would you make excuses for Japan and Germany in World War II ?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

In another thread, I asked what the difference is between terrorism and crime. The best answer I received was that terrorism is crime committed on another country based on ideological differences.

Now you are objecting to calling terrorists for terrorists ? What would you like to call them ? Petty Criminals ? Disgruntled Muslims ?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Michael Moore is a fearful hypocrite himself. He has an armed bodyguard.

Which is quite a shame. I've yet to hear any compelling argument explaining how Michael Moore is a terrorist. Seems to me he's just a guy with an opinion, his existence no more or less valid than anybody else's.

Do you deny that a vast group of Muslim terrorists has declared war on the USA ? Do you not believe them ? Is 9/11 not proof enough for you ? What is your motive for downplaying the terrorist threat ? Individual Americans shouldn't go around fearing the terrorists, but the USA as a whole should take the terrorists very seriously and apologists such as yourself are only helping the terrorists advance their goals. Would you make excuses for Japan and Germany in World War II ?

I have not said that Al Queda doesn't exist. That is not what this is about. What this is about is these dangers being over-hyped, our fears heightened, and our consciousness manipulated. There is no reason why the average American needs to lose sleep over a possible terrorist attack any more than they do a criminal attack.

This is also how far the government should go in protecting us without turning the entire country into some sort of police state protecting us like they tried to protect us from Communists, over-extending themselves in their rights, and manipulating us into supporting them by making us scared with all of these false positives.

The premise that is little understood is that too many false positives sort of numbs our reaction to future threats - the whole boy who cried wolf thing. Right now, the government is trying to make us hyper-aware of these threats, which for many Americans living nowhere near a place that would be attacked, are virtually non-existent. They are manipulating us this way, because people are scared by terrorism. It's the latest thing to be afraid of, replacing a mass outbreak of some sort of virus, giant insects, natural disasters, the supernatural, whatever...

They are making us *less* safe by over-exerting themselves in the definition of what a "reasonable amount of security/protection" is, and in trying to maintain support for their positions have fed us with a steady diet of things to be afraid of (Dick Cheney is great at this). It's gotten to a point where an orange alert is meaningless. What *are* we supposed to do with an orange alert anyway, bring a sweater?

There *is* something that is a threat, I won't deny that, but all of this is being blown way out of proportion to the point where we are at dangerous levels of heightened fear. A great example of this is this very thread:

fear all Muslims, they are our enemy? WTF?

This is very dangerous stuff folks, I'm afraid that we'll start treating Muslims the way we treated Blacks.

This FUD just needs to stop, we only need to be aware of *actual* threats, not every single possible potential threat that ever could be.

One of the problems with the wiretapping is that we have more data than we know what to do with - more false positives. Increasing the *quantity* of data is not the answer.

[Rolling Bones]

Coulter: Islam is "a car-burning cult"

"In her February 8 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter suggested that Islam is "a car-burning cult," and wrote that Muslims have "a predilection for violence." In her column, Coulter was commenting on the recent rash of violence linked to cartoons in European newspapers that satirized the Muslim Prophet Muhammad."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100003

[Kevin]

Rolling quoting Coulter. The world is about to end.

Even I wont quote Coulter.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think the Earth's rotation has slowed somewhat..

[subego]

I did feel a disturbance in the Force, but had chalked it up to indigestion.

[Railroader]

I feel kinda giddy.

[swrate]

yes, I agree with besson and i worry about this new nasty trend and phobia,



Ideas fly. (Arabic saying?)
If everyone thinks “Muslims are a threat and not to be trusted”, the one of the next steps is the extermination plan.
It’s the weakest side paying the heaviest tribute, as when masses of people were brainwashed after 1930 into thinking Jews were a disturbance, a threat, and were carrying all sorts of faults. A reminder of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia. Concentrating on the differences (instead of on the correspondences) leads to intolerance.

Terrorist attacks affect the M-E a lot, even with though/high security in many Muslim countries. The paranoia is stirred by militants and their radical interpretations. Frightened, they put people different from them in the same bag. It affects the whole planet: costly security measures and reduction of personal freedom.
About data: kerry said in one of his speeches that thousands of hours of tapes had to be checked.

Look at the similarity between radicals of all boards, extremes, mixing the use of religion with gun power. While fundamentalism grows, people submit and cover up to their ideas through fear of being found out. This is valid in the West too.
.
In nations were economy stagnates, regime is greedy, administration is heavy… and so on, the mass escapes hard reality through faith, belief and hope. The Westerner’s eye hijacking the Messenger of Peace to induce terrorism/satanism is a very low blow, long term problems, new Hamas recruits, Hezbollah to become official, and ……….. extrapolling
-let's not paint it black

I wish mediators on all sides can communicate and understand the ruthless and invisible enemy together, terrorism. Aren't occidentals “Christians” or “Jews” to show the good “superior” example, since experienced, civilized and with a “right” religion?

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Coulter: Islam is "a car-burning cult"

"In her February 8 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter suggested that Islam is "a car-burning cult," and wrote that Muslims have "a predilection for violence." In her column, Coulter was commenting on the recent rash of violence linked to cartoons in European newspapers that satirized the Muslim Prophet Muhammad."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100003

she is mixing with the riots in France Trolling

On another note, Rolling Bones, i hope, all for provocation.
Strange this sort of thread from a liberal.
No Muslim acquaintances? Trop de mépris, à mon avis.

[swrate]

Originally Posted by PacHead

No, they are giving the religion of Islam a bad name, and the Islamic World is much more worried about a few cartoons than all of the terrorists who have supposedly hijacked their religion. That isn't going to fly. Any clear thinking person can see right through that garbage game that they are playing.

Arabs brought paper in to Europe, if it was not for them we would not be running our white fingers through Bible paper.
What about their contribution to architecture, athletism, medicine, biology, geography, chemistry, humanitarian services, poetry, music, humor, …
Gold medals. First maps, astrolabes...

many are radical in their thoughts, yet blame Muslims of falling into the same path. Negative tightening “backwards” , hardening of positions, is retaliating against provocations. It’s also a way of clinging to identity, traditions and religion. This brings pressure from other sides.

Traditions! Bloody horrors for the little cons.
Ashura battle of Kerbala.
Every year the same topo. What, the savages???
Ironic, isn't it, the ritual was forbidden under Saddam. Shias wound themselves in remembrance of a huge defeat, lead by Hussein. By the way, Shias, the Martyrs of Islam, authorize Mohammed (pbuh) be depicted. There is a nuance on how. In remembrance of…. Rituals…….
Tattoos, piercings, scarifications…….we forgot our own rituals but fall back into them. Mental cannibalism, pictured by a page with an eye icon and the STOP sign on it.

[swrate]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I haven't read all the posts in this thread as I'm busy doing a number of things, but Pendergast's claim must be designed to provoke because it is absolutely false and I'm waiting to see how many other fair minded posters speak up on this issue.

I remember a tagline here saying: Ma fish Filistin, words tagged, moderated a little since then, and the many arguments about Palestine Israel and the colonies.
Yes, vmarks is not as radical in recent times, he applies the adage know your enemy” but then i may not be fair.
Self censored, hypocrisy, real change, or is it a cover as he thinks Tariq Ramadan wears?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You could save yourself some embarrassment by using the word 'never' more judiciously.

'infrequently' I might have to agree with. Never? Lies. Do your homework, it's on these forums and elsewhere you'll find the evidence.

For someone so accusatory of those perceived to make generalizations, you could use a good handheld mirror.

How about "rarely"? Or "almost never"?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Although vmarks already responded on his own behalf, I also want to note that claim is an obvious falsehood. I would even go so far as to say vmarks has posted positive things about Muslims every time he has posted on the forums in recent times. After all, his signature is completely dedicated to reformative Islamic organizations, so much so that some newcomers have assumed he's a Muslim rather than a Jew.

That is a nice bit here.

You shall do your hmework and save yourself the embarrassment by looking at the posts where vmarks is

has posted positive things about Muslims every time he has posted on the forums in recent times.

.

I'll be happy to apologize if you can prove it. And please make sure that "recent times" covers from 9/11 up to now.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Rolling quoting Coulter. The world is about to end.

Even I wont quote Coulter.

I'll quote Coulter if I'm feeling sad and want to laugh at something.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by swrate

yes, I agree with besson and i worry about this new nasty trend and phobia,



Ideas fly. (Arabic saying?)
If everyone thinks “Muslims are a threat and not to be trusted”, the one of the next steps is the extermination plan.
It’s the weakest side paying the heaviest tribute, as when masses of people were brainwashed after 1930 into thinking Jews were a disturbance, a threat, and were carrying all sorts of faults. A reminder of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia. Concentrating on the differences (instead of on the correspondences) leads to intolerance.

Terrorist attacks affect the M-E a lot, even with though/high security in many Muslim countries. The paranoia is stirred by militants and their radical interpretations. Frightened, they put people different from them in the same bag. It affects the whole planet: costly security measures and reduction of personal freedom.
About data: kerry said in one of his speeches that thousands of hours of tapes had to be checked.

Look at the similarity between radicals of all boards, extremes, mixing the use of religion with gun power. While fundamentalism grows, people submit and cover up to their ideas through fear of being found out. This is valid in the West too.
.
In nations were economy stagnates, regime is greedy, administration is heavy… and so on, the mass escapes hard reality through faith, belief and hope. The Westerner’s eye hijacking the Messenger of Peace to induce terrorism/satanism is a very low blow, long term problems, new Hamas recruits, Hezbollah to become official, and ……….. extrapolling
-let's not paint it black

I wish mediators on all sides can communicate and understand the ruthless and invisible enemy together, terrorism. Aren't occidentals “Christians” or “Jews” to show the good “superior” example, since experienced, civilized and with a “right” religion?

What frightens me is that the Jews were a percentage of inhabitants of Germany, Arabs/Muslims are a third of the world's population. Look at India alone, and tell me if the average American call tell Indians apart from Pakistanis, or Persians, or anybody else.

We cannot identify terrorists just by their nationality, appearance, or even religion, and I'm afraid (not losing sleep type afraid, but cynical afraid) that the idiot population among us will start witch hunting Muslims. You think that insulting Mohammed was a big deal? Surely a massacre of Muslims would also not be cool.

The neo-cons in here pride themselves in being practical and not "fuzzy brained" but I have yet to hear a great method for basically finding needles in a haystack in identifying our terrorist culprits without a whole bunch of false positives.

I've told you guys my solution, and even though the Left obviously doesn't have a strong consensus on what their message is, they seem to think that the Right has gone a little overboard and would probably take a slightly more moderate approach if they were in power. I strongly believe a more moderate approach would be far more effective at reaching our common desired goals that we all share.

The next time the neo-cons in here feel inspired to rant about the Left in here, please tell us: what is *your* solution - drop a bomb on the entire area? How about something more practical?

[besson3c]

Coulter: where are the neo-cons in here calling *her* a terrorist? She's just as much of a terrorist in her extremist thinking as Moore.


Why are extreme Right view points directly proportional with your love of America? I think it's the exact opposite - people like Coulter are *hurting* America more than they are helping it.

[jjlannoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you were judging on idiocy I guess.

Speaking for Myself only. I just think its unnecessary and I hope We outgrow it. Won't be in my lifetime thats for sure.

[besson3c]

What would happen if every time somebody on the Right posted some knee-jerk reaction about Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan being a terrorist somebody else suggested that Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly is a terrorist? Would it even things out to the point were these idiotic comments are not made anymore, or would it just make things worse?

[Mark Larr]

It's only going to get worse with the likes of Ted Kennedy still breathing and trying to bring the country to civil war.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

It's only going to get worse with the likes of Ted Kennedy still breathing and trying to bring the country to civil war.

Please elaborate rather than just dropping one on us and seeing what you stir up.

Thanks!

[Mark Larr]

That's what you leftists want, another civil war.

The democrats started it last time just like they are trying to start yet another one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

That's what you leftists want, another civil war.

The democrats started it last time just like they are trying to start yet another one.

Please elaborate rather than just dropping one on us and seeing what you stir up.

Thanks!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

That's what you leftists want, another civil war.

The democrats started it last time just like they are trying to start yet another one.

Learn2Troll

[Y3a]

Teddy Kennedy's opinions are KNOWN "BS" and he is not taken seriously. He's the drunken sot brother of JFK, the assinated president, and he gets bland respect because his brother isn't alive to get it.

Teddy knows that Mary Jo is waiting for him on 'the other side'.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Coulter: where are the neo-cons in here calling *her* a terrorist? She's just as much of a terrorist in her extremist thinking as Moore.

Very few "neo-cons" in here. I don't think MM is a terrorists, just a bad liar.

Why are extreme Right view points directly proportional with your love of America? I think it's the exact opposite - people like Coulter are *hurting* America more than they are helping it.

I would say leftists making people think there is no "threat" is hurting American more. But that is just me.

They are the ones putting their political ideology before what is best for the country.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What frightens me is that the Jews were a percentage of inhabitants of Germany, Arabs/Muslims are a third of the world's population. Look at India alone, and tell me if the average American call tell Indians apart from Pakistanis, or Persians, or anybody else.

We cannot identify terrorists just by their nationality, appearance, or even religion, and I'm afraid (not losing sleep type afraid, but cynical afraid) that the idiot population among us will start witch hunting Muslims. You think that insulting Mohammed was a big deal? Surely a massacre of Muslims would also not be cool.

The neo-cons in here pride themselves in being practical and not "fuzzy brained" but I have yet to hear a great method for basically finding needles in a haystack in identifying our terrorist culprits without a whole bunch of false positives.

I've told you guys my solution, and even though the Left obviously doesn't have a strong consensus on what their message is, they seem to think that the Right has gone a little overboard and would probably take a slightly more moderate approach if they were in power. I strongly believe a more moderate approach would be far more effective at reaching our common desired goals that we all share.

The next time the neo-cons in here feel inspired to rant about the Left in here, please tell us: what is *your* solution - drop a bomb on the entire area? How about something more practical?

If I'm not mistaken, it is Bush who has and is implementing a plan. The Fuzzy plan to just have "peace NOW!" won't work. That's you guy's problem. What you are resting your hopes on wasn't supposed to be the end all-be all of your existence. You were supposed to take the "Peace!" message and FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.

You don't get it.

Force is necessary to enforce peace until peace becomes what the people want.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by swrate

Arabs ... What about their contribution to ... athletism

[Kevin]

Goal kicking?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by swrate

I remember a tagline here saying: Ma fish Filistin, words tagged, moderated a little since then, and the many arguments about Palestine Israel and the colonies.
Yes, vmarks is not as radical in recent times, he applies the adage know your enemy” but then i may not be fair.
Self censored, hypocrisy, real change, or is it a cover as he thinks Tariq Ramadan wears?

One of the things I heard Robert Spencer say in passing the other day on Book TV was to the effect that Muslims seldom recall whatever their participation was leading up to the offense to them. So, in other words, there might be a suicide bombing in a Jewish business. And in retaliation the IDF targets a Hamas leader for attack. Then, the Palestinians are outraged that the Israelis would dare be so evil as to kill a Hamas leader!?

But they conveniently forget or omit the part leading up to the attack on Hamas.

Well, I've been keeping my eyes open the past few days for examples of this to see for myself if it is true. And I think this might be an example.

All of the things any of our Muslim posters might say about vmarks may be forgetting or omitting what was done to provoke or prompt his remarks. He's a pretty fair and level headed, sober and thoughtful guy. I don't know if there are any other Jews here but how would any of YOU feel if you knew there were people here at MacNN who might possibly want to do you real physical harm just because of your ethnicity or religion?

I think both our Jewish AND our Muslim posters can relate to that feeling. But, it's time we all gave it a thought.

Someone might want you dead for your beliefs and your race. And there's NOTHING you can do about it.

But, where the Jews have no choice in the matter, the Muslims actually do have a choice.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Goal kicking?

Beckham is an Arab?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What would happen if every time somebody on the Right posted some knee-jerk reaction about Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan being a terrorist

Rest assured. The reactions to Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are not knee-jerk. The reactions have slowly developed into a well-disciplined distaste for the actions of these folks as they are not only destructive to the nation that gave them the freedom to flap their worthless gums, but gave them an isolated audience of disenfranchised ugly-Americans who would like nothing more than to see us fall into chaos. Why? Because they're bored and want a little drama and some attention. At times it is therapeutic to address a snake using a forked tongue.

somebody else suggested that Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly is a terrorist? Would it even things out to the point were these idiotic comments are not made anymore, or would it just make things worse?

Call them what you want. We could outline statements made by each and conduct a poll if you wish. We can then agree upon some foundations for what constitutes dangerous nationalism vs dangerous communism and compare the two extremes. I think you'd be hard-pressed in this instance to include Bill O'Reilly of all people, but at least it's nice to know that knee-jerk reactionary behavior is not owned solely by the right.